Pregnant woman mauled to death by family pit bull

[jrsygal37]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

These stories really bother me because it is very apparent that "pit bulls" get way too much media attention. Many dogs cause serious harm daily and they are not all "pit bulls". I feel unsafe around chow chows, husky/malamutes, dingo type dogs, and even some german shepherds. A couple of these make the dangerous dog/do not insure lists, yet they rarely come up in conversations when people think "pit bulls" are the problem.

Big dogs cause more injury than little dogs. That certainly doesn't mean all big dogs should be banned. Yes, they have strong jaws. That's a reason to want to ban them?? I don't take human injury or death lightly; however, I also don't think the media is at all fair when choosing the cases that they report. There is a such thing as media bias and there is no way to know to what extent taht exists unless really digging into it. Perhaps "pit bulls" do kill more than any other breed, but perhaps they are the most abundant in the US. The AKC list is far from perfect. There are tons of pits here. I would expect a dog that is the most popular to be blamed for all the problems. The many dog fighters in Detroit do not register their dogs and they certainly aren't going to submit to having their dogs insured. They just hide them more. That is probably how the breed numbers are out of control as far as population goes. They can be used for fighting. They make people money. If the government spent more time dealing with the people who fight them, then perhaps there wouldn't be so many pit puppies in the world. IMO, deal with the criminals who own these dogs and give them more than a few days in jail. Then you will have less to deal with as far as trying to legislate a breed away.

And I do think it is completely unfair to just say pit bulls are bad. Pit bull is not a breed. There are like 3 breeds and 2 others that sometmes look like pits. So maybe if we don't know which exact breed is responsible, perhaps it's only fair to divide the number of attacks by 3.

I'm very sorry for this family's loss. Still though, we weren't there and don't know what happened. Yes, the dog attacked her which was completely unacceptable, but we have no idea if the human initiated and was being abusive, etc.

Just because they can kill a person easier than the next breed doesn't mean that they are mean and horrible. I'll deal with one over a shepherd anyday. Much more friendly to strangers in general.

[wykid]

These stories are exactly the reason I hate when people use the argument, "It's the owners, not the dogs." Yes, sometimes, it IS the owners, but it's something like 1 out 3 dog attacks are from pit bulls. That statistic is pretty high just for irresponsible owners. Just sayin'.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

These stories really bother me because it is very apparent that "pit bulls" get way too much media attention. Many dogs cause serious harm daily and they are not all "pit bulls". I feel unsafe around chow chows, husky/malamutes, dingo type dogs, and even some german shepherds. A couple of these make the dangerous dog/do not insure lists, yet they rarely come up in conversations when people think "pit bulls" are the problem.

Big dogs cause more injury than little dogs. That certainly doesn't mean all big dogs should be banned. Yes, they have strong jaws. That's a reason to want to ban them?? I don't take human injury or death lightly; however, I also don't think the media is at all fair when choosing the cases that they report. There is a such thing as media bias and there is no way to know to what extent taht exists unless really digging into it. Perhaps "pit bulls" do kill more than any other breed, but perhaps they are the most abundant in the US. The AKC list is far from perfect. There are tons of pits here. I would expect a dog that is the most popular to be blamed for all the problems. The many dog fighters in Detroit do not register their dogs and they certainly aren't going to submit to having their dogs insured. They just hide them more. That is probably how the breed numbers are out of control as far as population goes. They can be used for fighting. They make people money. If the government spent more time dealing with the people who fight them, then perhaps there wouldn't be so many pit puppies in the world. IMO, deal with the criminals who own these dogs and give them more than a few days in jail. Then you will have less to deal with as far as trying to legislate a breed away.

And I do think it is completely unfair to just say pit bulls are bad. Pit bull is not a breed. There are like 3 breeds and 2 others that sometmes look like pits. So maybe if we don't know which exact breed is responsible, perhaps it's only fair to divide the number of attacks by 3.

I'm very sorry for this family's loss. Still though, we weren't there and don't know what happened. Yes, the dog attacked her which was completely unacceptable, but we have no idea if the human initiated and was being abusive, etc.

Just because they can kill a person easier than the next breed doesn't mean that they are mean and horrible. I'll deal with one over a shepherd anyday. Much more friendly to strangers in general.

Actually if you look up pregnant women mauled by pit bull you get a lot more stories of where the pit bull didn't really do it, but the only stories that are printed by reliable sources say preliminary autopsy results indicate the pit bull in question did it. So I don't think you can blame "media coverage" In fact the pit bull lobbyists have done a tremendous job over the last 20 or so years convincing most people there is no problem. I don't think anyone here is saying we should ban the breeds involved, but I think some of us believe that something should be done. Maximo linked this site: :Pit Bull Myths - Dangerous Dogs - DogsBite.org After reading it, I would be interested in some of your views about it. I don't think they are saying Pitbulls are mean and horrible, but they are saing that they are dangerous.

[Maximo]

I can't accept full credit for the link; someone else linked it earlier.

On that site, there is a list of the top breeds responsible for serious injury and death in the US, and the stats include the percentage of the dog population that the breed represents.

I think about this topic a lot because of the problems I have encountered with off-leash dogs, and I don't know what the solution is. We have leash laws, but so many people disobey them. Plus, the leash laws allow for the dogs to be on their yards unleashed, giving the dogs the opportunity to run when they see something outside of their yards. Makes me very sad to read here how many people do not walk their dogs because of their fear of encountering large off-leash dogs.

Bans and breed-specific legislation would not be effective in a lot of places. Owners would just go underground, keep their dogs hidden.

It's a vexing problem.

[MaddiesMommie]

At first glance I see that-
"DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks."
I would like to see where they got thier information from. I have read other sites that claim differently than what they report.

From personal experience of being a victim of a dog bite, I know my view on the breed that bit me was skewed for a long time, unfortunaltely.

[MaddiesMommie]

Taken from another source:
ASPCA | Breed Specific Legislation
Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support Breed Specific Laws. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.

In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:
More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.

[Maximo]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

At first glance I see that-
"DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks."
I would like to see where they got thier information from. I have read other sites that claim differently than what they report.

From personal experience of being a victim of a dog bite, I know my view on the breed that bit me was skewed for a long time, unfortunaltely.

I agree, I would very much like an impartial source for statistics and things that can be established as facts. I don't know why it is so difficult. It is a disservice to everyone on both sides of the debate and the dogs.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Maximo

I agree, I would very much like an impartial source for statistics and things that can be established as facts. I don't know why it is so difficult. It is a disservice to everyone on both sides of the debate and the dogs.

I agree, it just seems like if someone even questions if there is a problem, people get so angry and act like we're prejudiced. I really only want the truth.



On a side note The U.S. Marine Corps Bans Pit Bulls and Other Breeds; Policy Affects All Privatized Housing.

Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, canid/wolf hybrids, or any canine breed with dominant traits of aggression present an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of personnel in family housing areas. Consequently, full or mixed breeds of Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and canid/wolf hybrids are prohibited aboard Marine Corps installations. In the absence of formal breed identification (e.g., certification by a civilian organization such as the American Kennel Club) a Corps Officer (VCO) or a civilian veterinarian.U.S. Marine Corps Bans Pit Bulls and Other Breeds; Policy Affects All Privatized Housing - DogsBite.org

Also the Army.

U.S. Army Adopts Breed Restriction Policy for RCI Privatized Housing

In January, the U.S. Army standardized its pet policy, banning breeds deemed "aggressive or potentially aggressive." The breeds (and their mixes) include: pit bulls, American staffordshire terriers, bull terriers, rottweilers, doberman pinschers, chows, wolf hybrids and any others that display a dominant or aggressive behavior. The U.S. Army enacted the new policy to prevent pet owners from encountering uneven policies when moving between installations. U.S. Army Adopts Breed Restriction Policy for RCI Privatized Housing - DogsBite.org

[yorkietalkjilly]

That is scary reading! Makes you almost scared to take your little one out for a walk.

[roseylovestosho]

I don't think we could ever disentangle the "it's the owner not the breed" argument because people self-select into buying pit bulls. What type of person is more likely to buy a pit bull? Just as an example, two pit bulls live inside a small apartment in my apartment complex. They belong to a couple who I've seen get into arguments outside of my bedroom window and who I saw beat his girlfriend while on her knees in the middle of the night (woke me and Teddy up with the yelling). I've also seen the owner beat his dogs in front of me and Teddy. The only way to truly know whether it is the owner versus the breed would be to randomly assign pit bulls to people and see how they turn out. Unfortunately, while this as scientific as it could get, it is clearly impossible to do. Is there something systematic about the people who are choosing these dogs? I don't know, and I don't think any studies have addressed this properly. I'm not taking a stance...I honestly would feel safer if there weren't pit bulls in my neighborhood just b/c the ones I've met don't give me the fuzzies...it's just something to think about (at least in my opinion).

[MaddiesMommie]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I agree, it just seems like if someone even questions if there is a problem, people get so angry and act like we're prejudiced. I really only want the truth.

I hope you did not feel this was my intention with my post.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

I hope you did not feel this was my intention with my post.

Oh certainly not. I answered these threads before with just a question and gotten blasted.

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

Taken from another source:
ASPCA | Breed Specific Legislation
Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support Breed Specific Laws. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.

In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:
More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.

Personally, I don't find statistics like these helpful in understanding the problem...and this is why. It states that 84% were maintained by reckless owners...and I think we could agree that reckless owners don't neuter/spay their dogs...so is it really a result of the dog not being neutered or is it just a correlation that exists that stems from the owner being reckless?

[MaddiesMommie]

Originally Posted by roseylovestosho

I don't think we could ever disentangle the "it's the owner not the breed" argument because people self-select into buying pit bulls. What type of person is more likely to buy a pit bull? Just as an example, two pit bulls live inside a small apartment in my apartment complex. They belong to a couple who I've seen get into arguments outside of my bedroom window and who I saw beat his girlfriend while on her knees in the middle of the night (woke me and Teddy up with the yelling). I've also seen the owner beat his dogs in front of me and Teddy. The only way to truly know whether it is the owner versus the breed would be to randomly assign pit bulls to people and see how they turn out. Unfortunately, while this as scientific as it could get, it is clearly impossible to do. Is there something systematic about the people who are choosing these dogs? I don't know, and I don't think any studies have addressed this properly. I'm not taking a stance...I honestly would feel safer if there weren't pit bulls in my neighborhood just b/c the ones I've met don't give me the fuzzies...it's just something to think about (at least in my opinion).

I have one of the many dogs that fall into the generic "pit bull" catergory, Am Staff Terrier. I do not compare myself to someone who chooses this breed to abuse it, mistreat it, or use it for cruel and inhuman purposes. Therefore, I would not think there is anything systematic about those of us who have this breed.
I have Ernie because my husband fell in love with this breed after spending time with his parents.

[roseylovestosho]

Originally Posted by MaddiesMommie

I have one of the many dogs that fall into the generic "pit bull" catergory, Am Staff Terrier. I do not compare myself to someone who chooses this breed to abuse it, mistreat it, or use it for cruel and inhuman purposes. Therefore, I would not think there is anything systematic about those of us who have this breed.
I have Ernie because my husband fell in love with this breed after spending time with his parents.

You are an individual, and possibly an outlier. I'm not saying that everyone who owns these dogs is that type of person...just that on average there might be some correlation. For example, if you are wealthy, you are more likely to be a Republican. Does that mean that only the wealthy are Republicans, or that no Democrats are wealthy? Not really, just that on average wealthy tend to be Republican. It's just like a trend...I'm not trying to make mean comments about you or your family so please don't take it that way!