Yet another Pitt Bull attack (2 Viewers)

[eoMMan]

This week I was walking down 6th ave in NYC and I noticed some guy tying up their pit bull's leash to a sign post so he could apparently go shop in a cupcake store. It was a beautiful dog and seemed well-behaved, but what kind of clown leaves their pit bull tied up on a busy street in midtown NYC? On my way back a few min later, the dog is still there with no owner in sight. I go into the store and there was already another guy yelling at the owner about leaving the dog unattended, all while the fat ### owner is sitting there eating a cupcake.

And when that dog bites someone, it will be the breed's fault....sad.

 

[SpurrierisisGod]

Bad analogy.

We have to consume peanuts in order to die from them. Food servers have a duty to warn patrons that their foods have peanuts in them. But a peanut cannot jump into a mouth on its own.

With pitbulls the issue that THEY are the ones who, on their own, can cause the injury to someone being reasonable and careful.

Zow, it was neither worth the effort nor worthy of the effort to respond to.

Before it was Ferraris... now its Peanuts.

pretty much anything that can be dangerous should be banned. that is, if we are truly interested in saving as many lives as possible. or we can just cherry pick what we think without rhyme or reason and call it a day.



Things that are overly dangerous get banned or restricted.

Like wolves and hyenas, as pets.

Guns? Alcohol? Tobacco? Bungee jumping? Sky diving?

Pretty sure my gun can't jump the fence while I'm at work and maul the old lady down the street. My labs could, but have no desire to leave the place where they get their food. I didn't train them to do that. They just do.

The guns/alcohol/tobacco argument is no good as they all require people to perform some physical act to cause harm, i.e, pull the trigger, drink AND drive, light a smoke AND inhale. Pits (or other aggressive dogs) do not require me to do anything in order for them to attack.

People can be harmed by everything mentioned because of irresponsible people, but that is where the analogy ends. Also, the non-dog things you mention are all pretty much regulated already. Pit (or any dog) ownership is not.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Pretty sure my gun can't jump the fence while I'm at work and maul the old lady down the street. My labs could, but have no desire to leave the place where they get their food. I didn't train them to do that. They just do.The guns/alcohol/tobacco argument is no good as they all require people to perform some physical act to cause harm, i.e, pull the trigger, drink AND drive, light a smoke AND inhale. Pits (or other aggressive dogs) do not require me to do anything in order for them to attack.People can be harmed by everything mentioned because of irresponsible people, but that is where the analogy ends. Also, the non-dog things you mention are all pretty much regulated already. Pit (or any dog) ownership is not.

If you leave your gun unattended, it can kill a child.You drinking alcohol can kill me without me doing anything.And all those things (or most anyway) are only regulated for minors. I'd be more than okay with minors not being allowed to own any type of dog.

 

[jomar]

Any dog can bite.

But can any dog kill from their bite?

No. But the Pit apologists won't respond to reason.

given the right circumstances, I'd say yes, any dog can kill from their bite. but the Pit haters won't respond to reason.

Neck already opened up 2/3, clinging to life, Chihuahua gets access to an artery?

as I said, the pit haters won't respond to reason.how about the link recently posted with a 3-day old baby? you don't think a chihuahua could kill a 3 day old baby?

No response to this one? I'll take that as an admission that you will admit that yes, any dog can kill with their bite. Was that so hard?

 

[TexanFan02]

Any dog can bite.

But can any dog kill from their bite?

No. But the Pit apologists won't respond to reason.

given the right circumstances, I'd say yes, any dog can kill from their bite. but the Pit haters won't respond to reason.

Neck already opened up 2/3, clinging to life, Chihuahua gets access to an artery?

as I said, the pit haters won't respond to reason.how about the link recently posted with a 3-day old baby? you don't think a chihuahua could kill a 3 day old baby?

No response to this one? I'll take that as an admission that you will admit that yes, any dog can kill with their bite. Was that so hard?

You can't be this dumb. No, wait, it's the internet, you can.

 

[jomar]

Any dog can bite.

But can any dog kill from their bite?

No. But the Pit apologists won't respond to reason.

given the right circumstances, I'd say yes, any dog can kill from their bite. but the Pit haters won't respond to reason.

Neck already opened up 2/3, clinging to life, Chihuahua gets access to an artery?

as I said, the pit haters won't respond to reason.how about the link recently posted with a 3-day old baby? you don't think a chihuahua could kill a 3 day old baby?

No response to this one? I'll take that as an admission that you will admit that yes, any dog can kill with their bite. Was that so hard?

You can't be this dumb. No, wait, it's the internet, you can.

You don't think a small dog could kill a baby and I'm the dumb one Good fishing

 

[Cunk]

Any dog can bite.

But can any dog kill from their bite?

No. But the Pit apologists won't respond to reason.

given the right circumstances, I'd say yes, any dog can kill from their bite. but the Pit haters won't respond to reason.

Neck already opened up 2/3, clinging to life, Chihuahua gets access to an artery?

as I said, the pit haters won't respond to reason.how about the link recently posted with a 3-day old baby? you don't think a chihuahua could kill a 3 day old baby?

No response to this one? I'll take that as an admission that you will admit that yes, any dog can kill with their bite. Was that so hard?

You can't be this dumb. No, wait, it's the internet, you can.

You don't think a small dog could kill a baby and I'm the dumb one Good fishing

I don't believe he was saying that a small dog couldn't kill a baby. I think what he was saying, and I may be wrong on this, that a small dog doesn't have nearly the killing capacity of a pitt bull. Now mind you, I haven't done all the research on this so take it for what it's worth.

 

[TakiToki]

What about greater fines / jail time for owners whose dogs attack?

I would love for all of the pits to fall off into the ocean but you and I both know that's not reality. What's a sensible solution for pit bulls?

I'm pretty sure we're all down with that.

Yeah, that will bring the children back to life.

How's Fantasyland treating you?

How's "It's ok that Pit Bull's kill babies because there are millions of people in the U.S. and only a small percentage of babies get killed by Pits" treating you?

It's all about percentages.Way more people die from peanut allergies each year (even with lots of food packaging warning people of possible peanuts inside) than they do from pitbull attacks.

Should we prevent everyone in the US to stop eating or even owning peanuts....BECAUSE THEY COULD KILL?

Bad analogy. We have to consume peanuts in order to die from them. Food servers have a duty to warn patrons that their foods have peanuts in them. But a peanut cannot jump into a mouth on its own.

With pitbulls the issue that THEY are the ones who, on their own, can cause the injury to someone being reasonable and careful.

Fine. How about swimming pools, ponds, lakes and oceans? Those don't require any external factors to kill.

Pretty sure none of those have minds of their own and can chase you down the street.

How and why are those distinctions salient from a policy-making standpoint, in your opinion?

 

[Joe Summer]

you don't think a chihuahua could kill a 3 day old baby?

at its best.

 

[Otis]

Some of you people are dense.I'm done debating this issue because you clearly aren't willing to look at the other side of things.I will pop in and occasionally post stories of poor abused pitbulls and dog bites from other breeds.(assuming the pitbull bite links will continue to be posted).Have a good day.

When you post about the abused pit bulls do you mean abused as in "it was fed an untasty baby"?

 

[Otis]

You compared an all to often viscous (of its own accord) pitbull to a peanut.

acutally, he didn't. he's talking about people dying and what causes them to die. why ban pitbulls but allow peanuts? can you make one logical argument for that? if you are truly for saving as many lives as possible, I'd think you'd be in favor of eliminating as many unnecessary deaths as possible, no?

Christ. I guess pitt bull owners are never going to win awards on the internet for their logic and reasoning skills. But they got sweet ink, bro!

 

[Otis]

You guys ever put your pitt bulls on surfboards?

 

[parasaurolophus]

What about greater fines / jail time for owners whose dogs attack?

I would love for all of the pits to fall off into the ocean but you and I both know that's not reality. What's a sensible r for pit bulls?

I'm pretty sure we're all down with that.

Yeah, that will bring the children back to life.

r

How's Fantasyland treating you?

How's "It's ok that Pit Bull's kill babies because there are millions of people in the U.S. and only a small percentage of babies get killed by Pits" treating you?

It's all about percentages.Way more people die from peanut allergies each year (even with lots of food packaging warning people of possible peanuts inside) than they do from pitbull attacks.

Should we prevent everyone in the US to stop eating or even owning peanuts....BECAUSE THEY COULD KILL?

Bad analogy. We have to consume peanuts in order to die from them. Food servers have a duty to warn patrons that their foods have peanuts in them. But a peanut cannot jump into a mouth on its own.

With pitbulls the issue that THEY are the ones who, on their own, can cause the injury to someone being reasonable and careful.

Fine. How about swimming pools, ponds, lakes and oceans? Those don't require any external factors to kill.

Pretty sure none of those have minds of their own and can chase you down the street.

true, but things like Ferraris and swimming pools if paired with an irresponsible owner can lead to the death of innocent children.

and there is legislation for both.

 

[jomar]

Any dog can bite.

But can any dog kill from their bite?

No. But the Pit apologists won't respond to reason.

given the right circumstances, I'd say yes, any dog can kill from their bite. but the Pit haters won't respond to reason.

Neck already opened up 2/3, clinging to life, Chihuahua gets access to an artery?

as I said, the pit haters won't respond to reason.how about the link recently posted with a 3-day old baby? you don't think a chihuahua could kill a 3 day old baby?

No response to this one? I'll take that as an admission that you will admit that yes, any dog can kill with their bite. Was that so hard?

You can't be this dumb. No, wait, it's the internet, you can.

You don't think a small dog could kill a baby and I'm the dumb one Good fishing

I don't believe he was saying that a small dog couldn't kill a baby. I think what he was saying, and I may be wrong on this, that a small dog doesn't have nearly the killing capacity of a pitt bull. Now mind you, I haven't done all the research on this so take it for what it's worth.

Read what you quoted. Beavers asked if any dog could kill from its bite, texasfan replied 'no'. When I responded 'yes any dog could under the right circumstances', Tfan had the witty reply of LOL and a ridiculous scenario, to which I mentioned a story just posted. Tfan in his brilliance LOLd again and called me dumb. So tell me who can't respond to reason.I never said a put bull couldn't more easily kill. We were talking about whether ANY dog could kill and the answer is obviously yes, but for some reason the pit haters have a hard time even conceding this point.

 

[jomar]

It's all about percentages.

Way more people die from peanut allergies each year (even with lots of food packaging warning people of possible peanuts inside) than they do from pitbull attacks.

Should we prevent everyone in the US to stop eating or even owning peanuts....BECAUSE THEY COULD KILL?

Bad analogy. We have to consume peanuts in order to die from them. Food servers have a duty to warn patrons that their foods have peanuts in them. But a peanut cannot jump into a mouth on its own.

With pitbulls the issue that THEY are the ones who, on their own, can cause the injury to someone being reasonable and careful.

Fine. How about swimming pools, ponds, lakes and oceans? Those don't require any external factors to kill.

Pretty sure none of those have minds of their own and can chase you down the street.

true, but things like Ferraris and swimming pools if paired with an irresponsible owner can lead to the death of innocent children.

and there is legislation for both.

Does the legislation ban those things?I'm (and most of the pro-pit crowd) all for legislation for all dogs. Hold ALL owners responsible, not just owners of one breed.

 

[matuski]

wow.

 

[The Commish]

wow.

My thoughts exactly. Can't determine if this thread or the Mormon racism thread is better.

 

[parasaurolophus]

It's all about percentages.

Way more people die from peanut allergies each year (even with lots of food packaging warning people of possible peanuts inside) than they do from pitbull attacks.

Should we prevent everyone in the US to stop eating or even owning peanuts....BECAUSE THEY COULD KILL?

Bad analogy. We have to consume peanuts in order to die from them. Food servers have a duty to warn patrons that their foods have peanuts in them. But a peanut cannot jump into a mouth on its own.

With pitbulls the issue that THEY are the ones who, on their own, can cause the injury to someone being reasonable and careful.

Fine. How about swimming pools, ponds, lakes and oceans? Those don't require any external factors to kill.

Pretty sure none of those have minds of their own and can chase you down the street.

true, but things like Ferraris and swimming pools if paired with an irresponsible owner can lead to the death of innocent children.

and there is legislation for both.

Does the legislation ban those things?I'm (and most of the pro-pit crowd) all for legislation for all dogs. Hold ALL owners responsible, not just owners of one breed.

It is not just about holding them responsible. It is about forcing certain things as well. If you have a pool you need a fenced in yard. If you don't build a fence you get fined. In a ferrari if you speed, you get a ticket. Drive drunk, arrested. Blow a red light, ticket. Lots of other things, arrested/ticket.

Pit bull owners need to get fined/arrested if they don't do a laundry list of things. Not just be held responsible when something bad happens.

 

[jomar]

It's all about percentages.

Way more people die from peanut allergies each year (even with lots of food packaging warning people of possible peanuts inside) than they do from pitbull attacks.

Should we prevent everyone in the US to stop eating or even owning peanuts....BECAUSE THEY COULD KILL?

Bad analogy. We have to consume peanuts in order to die from them. Food servers have a duty to warn patrons that their foods have peanuts in them. But a peanut cannot jump into a mouth on its own.

With pitbulls the issue that THEY are the ones who, on their own, can cause the injury to someone being reasonable and careful.

Fine. How about swimming pools, ponds, lakes and oceans? Those don't require any external factors to kill.

Pretty sure none of those have minds of their own and can chase you down the street.

true, but things like Ferraris and swimming pools if paired with an irresponsible owner can lead to the death of innocent children.

and there is legislation for both.

Does the legislation ban those things?I'm (and most of the pro-pit crowd) all for legislation for all dogs. Hold ALL owners responsible, not just owners of one breed.

It is not just about holding them responsible. It is about forcing certain things as well. If you have a pool you need a fenced in yard. If you don't build a fence you get fined. In a ferrari if you speed, you get a ticket. Drive drunk, arrested. Blow a red light, ticket. Lots of other things, arrested/ticket.

Pit bull owners need to get fined/arrested if they don't do a laundry list of things. Not just be held responsible when something bad happens.

I'd agree with all of those things except I'd change 'pit bull owners' to 'all dog owners'.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'd agree with all of those things except I'd change 'pit bull owners' to 'all dog owners'.

That makes no sense and you know it. Forcing a yorkie owner to build a fence around his yard is stupid. I have no problems with the same legislation being in place for lots of dangerous breeds, but the attempt to deflect in this thread by the constant battle cry of "all dogs" serves no legit purpose. Just because you can name another dangerous breed, doesn't make a pit less dangerous. Go start another thread for that.

 

[Joe Summer]

8 month old boy killed by 3 pitt bulls

May as well been 3 Chihuahuas, right?

 

[steelerfan1]

8 month old boy killed by 3 pitt bulls

May as well been 3 Chihuahuas, right?

or a golden retriever

 

[Chaka]

Bottom line there is only one solution, tougher penalties on dog owners (all dog owners). Not sure why it is so difficult to get this accomplished...unless of course legislators have been made aware of the issue and recognize that it is not a big enough public threat to spend resources on.

 

[Otis]

You have to be a complete moron, hillbilly, or a bro with sweet neck tats to be comfortable putting your small baby around a bunch of viscous animals. People are astoundingly stupid.

 

[Otis]

Amazing that people put these animals in their homes. Why not get a few rattlesnakes and king cobras to crawl around your living room, and toss some electric eels up in the bathtub.



What, they only attack when they feel threatened111!!1

 

[Otis]

8 month old boy killed by 3 pitt bulls

May as well been 3 Chihuahuas, right?

or a golden retriever

"Golden retriever mix"HTH

 

[steelerfan1]

8 month old boy killed by 3 pitt bulls

May as well been 3 Chihuahuas, right?

or a golden retriever

"Golden retriever mix"HTH

mix of lab and golden.do we ban the lab, retriever, or both?

 

[Otis]

Simple question for the pitt bull nerds:

Why put this dog in your home? There are at least 150 different breeds of dog. Why not just get another one? Are these cooler? More uber sweet looking? Cool because they're tough?

 

[Otis]

8 month old boy killed by 3 pitt bulls

May as well been 3 Chihuahuas, right?

or a golden retriever

"Golden retriever mix"HTH

mix of lab and golden.do we ban the lab, retriever, or both?

After one incident? Neither. But let's do this. Let's not take mixed animals from homes that did not want them and then leave them alone with our two-month-olds while we sleep. That work?Of course, I wouldn't leave any big dog around my 2 month old alone -- let alone one of these pitt beasts -- but I'm also not a moron.

 

[steelerfan1]

After one incident? Neither. But let's do this. Let's not take mixed animals from homes that did not want them and then leave them alone with our two-month-olds while we sleep. That work?Of course, I wouldn't leave any big dog around my 2 month old alone -- let alone one of these pitt beasts -- but I'm also not a moron.

so how many "incidents" does it take?all i am trying to say, somewhat like others here, a dog, any dog of average size and above can harm/kill.also agree a baby/child should not be left unsupervised with a dog.

 

[Charlie Frown]

You have to be a complete moron, hillbilly, or a bro with sweet neck tats to be comfortable putting your small baby around a bunch of viscous animals. People are astoundingly stupid.

Don't start picking on us now.

Of course I did know of a guy who had a pit pull but he let it lick peanut butter off of his balls and it caught salmonella and died.

 

[Chaka]

Offering solutions is much better than mindless, uninformed #####ing Otis. How should we solve the problem beyond justifying your personal crusade against "hillbillies"?

 

[Otis]

Offering solutions is much better than mindless, uninformed #####ing Otis. How should we solve the problem beyond justifying your personal crusade against "hillbillies"?

What do I care. Don't solve it. Just keep your murdering animals away from my family.

 

[joffer]

Offering solutions is much better than mindless, uninformed #####ing Otis. How should we solve the problem beyond justifying your personal crusade against "hillbillies"?

What do I care. Don't solve it. Just keep your murdering animals away from my family.

Please stay off my side. TIA

 

[Chaka]

Offering solutions is much better than mindless, uninformed #####ing Otis. How should we solve the problem beyond justifying your personal crusade against "hillbillies"?

What do I care. Don't solve it. Just keep your murdering animals away from my family.

Really Otis? I actually thought you cared about other people and the perceived dog problem. However if all you are concerned about is your own bubble, which is completely understandable, then you should probably make more preparations against lightning because it is more likely to kill your wife or child than a dog attack.Frankly I am a little disappointed because I want to think better of you although I can't explain why.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Of course, I wouldn't leave any big dog around my 2 month old alone -- let alone one of these pitt beasts -- but I'm also not a moron.

fypJack Russell Terrier kills baby. Family also owns a Pit Bull.

All dogs need very close supervision around infants. Not just big dogs. That's how morons think, Oat.

 

[eoMMan]

Of course, I wouldn't leave any big dog around my 2 month old alone -- let alone one of these pitt beasts -- but I'm also not a moron.

fypJack Russell Terrier kills baby. Family also owns a Pit Bull.

All dogs need very close supervision around infants. Not just big dogs. That's how morons think, Oat.

 

[Otis]

Of course, I wouldn't leave any big dog around my 2 month old alone -- let alone one of these pitt beasts -- but I'm also not a moron.

fypJack Russell Terrier kills baby. Family also owns a Pit Bull.

All dogs need very close supervision around infants. Not just big dogs. That's how morons think, Oat.

You're missing the point.

 

[jomar]

Of course, I wouldn't leave any big dog around my 2 month old alone -- let alone one of these pitt beasts -- but I'm also not a moron.

fypJack Russell Terrier kills baby. Family also owns a Pit Bull.

All dogs need very close supervision around infants. Not just big dogs. That's how morons think, Oat.

Sounds like the pit bull may have framed the incapable of killing a human jack Russell.

 

[Cunk]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

Simple question for the pitt bull nerds:Why put this dog in your home? There are at least 150 different breeds of dog. Why not just get another one? Are these cooler? More uber sweet looking? Cool because they're tough?

I have mine because my sister couldn't take care of it anymore. Only place she could get doesn't allow any pets. The dog is simply fantastic. Other than being a little to docile. The pit also lives with a cat. I used to have a lab retriever mix who was far more aggressive. This dog is anything but tough. Easily the best dog I have had.

 

[Otis]

Simple question for the pitt bull nerds:Why put this dog in your home? There are at least 150 different breeds of dog. Why not just get another one? Are these cooler? More uber sweet looking? Cool because they're tough?

I have mine because my sister couldn't take care of it anymore. Only place she could get doesn't allow any pets. The dog is simply fantastic. Other than being a little to docile. The pit also lives with a cat. I used to have a lab retriever mix who was far more aggressive. This dog is anything but tough. Easily the best dog I have had.

Good luck with that. And I'm sorry your sister was irresponsible and took in a dangerous animal she no longer wanted to care for.

 

[Otis]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

 

[Chaka]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

Actually they can and likely do. The Merritt Clifton study, referenced by Cunk, has been discussed at length. It is merely an attempt to compile media reports on dog attacks, there are a large number of inherent flaws built into the study.I know none of that will matter to you or BST because it supports your personal beliefs but the reality is the MC study has no scientific credibility and offers little, if any, information of value.

 

[Chaka]

Not that anyone will care but here is a very nice breakdown of the flaws inherent in the Merritt Clifton Study.

Merritt Clifton's study is a medley of newspaper articles that present a very biased and inaccurate overview of dog bites. It is more of an incomplete tally of severe bites than a study. Media as only source of data

Clifton's only source for his findings is the media, and he focuses on cases that required "extensive hospitalization." This term is never defined in his article. It might mean stitches, or it might mean amputation.

Missing data

In the beginning of the study, Clifton states that attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, dogs trained to fight, and dogs whose breed may be uncertain are excluded. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume a good number of attacks are not included. This might leave the reader with the assumption that Clifton has included all other dog attacks.

The CDC reports in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that of the "333,700 patients treated for dog bites in emergency departments in 1994, approximately 6,000 were hospitalized." (July 4, 2003 article at http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5226a1.htm)

However, Clifton lists only 2,363 bites total—and that is over the 25 years that he has tallied media reports of attacks.

If approximately 6,000 people require hospitalization each year because of a dog attack, then over 25 years, there would have been 150,000 people hospitalized. Yet Clifton has apparently only found media reports for 1.6% of all these attacks.

Clifton's report therefore implies that the remaining 98.4% of bites that required "extensive hospitalization" according to the CDC were by non-identifiable types of dogs or police, guard, or fighting animals. This is highly unlikely. Clifton's data is so incomplete as to make it virtually useless for analyzing patterns related to severe dog attacks.

Miscategorization and misidentification

On Clifton's list of all dog attacks and the dogs' breed, he makes several mistakes.

He lists the Australian Blue Heeler, the Australian Cattle Dog, the Blue Heeler, and the Queensland Heeler as separate breeds. These are all different names for the same breed. Listing these attacks under separate breed names skewed the results of the study.

It should be noted that Clifton does not attempt to divide pit bull attacks into separate breed names. If he were to do so, it is not clear what his study results would show; "pit bull" is a generic term for at least three different breeds of dogs, and dozens of other breeds are often lumped into the "pit bull" category based on their similar appearance.

There are also 33 attacks that were supposedly done by "Bull Mastiff (Presa Canario)." Bull Mastiffs and Presa Canarios are distinctly different breeds, and if there is question about which breed the dog is, this attack should not be listed as a "clearly identified breed."

The report also attempts to identify the predominant breed in dogs. Clifton gives no reason as to why he listed an attack as being done by an Akita/Chow mix instead of a Chow/Akita mix. How did he determine that Beagle was the predominant breed in the attack done by a Beagle/German Shepherd Dog?

Clifton makes several spelling mistakes throughout his report. Misidentified breeds listed as a "Chox mix," "Dauschund," "Doge De Bordeaux," "Fila Brasiero," "Buff Mastiff," "Great Pyranees," and "Weimaeaner" compromise Clifton's credibility.

Inability to determine risk scientifically

In Clifton's analysis, he attempts to evaluate dog behavior based on breed, bite frequency, and "degree of relative risk."

Yet Clifton has shown numerous times in his report that he cannot identify a breed properly, or even spell breed names correctly.

Both bite frequency and degree of relative risk are impossible to calculate. No one knows how often breeds bite since hundreds of bites go unreported. And to attempt to determine a "degree of relative risk," Clifton would have to know every factor that contributed to every dog bite.

Even the CDC concluded at the end of their own flawed study (see above) that there is no way to determine relative risk:

There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

Merritt Clifton apparently does not understand the many factors that go into a reliable calculation of relative risk, nor does he wish to acknowledge that trained researchers realize that many, if not most, of those factors can never be known or calculated.Misapplied and misinterpreted data

Clifton's analysis section is full of faults and absurd assumptions.

Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern . . . Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are.

As discussed, Clifton has tallied less than two percent of all severe dog attacks. He clearly has no idea how frequently pit bulls—or any other type of dog, for that matter—bite.Furthermore, without knowing all bite factors, including the dog's health, condition, sexual state, training, environment, and the behavior of the victim, there is no way Clifton could possibly conceive any possible pattern or difference as to who pit bulls attack.

Since Clifton is tallying media articles, his conclusion seems to be more telling of media coverage of dog bites. If one was to assume that the media is more likely to publish a pit bull attack than an attack by another type of dog, and more likely to publish an attack on a child than an attack on an adult, it stands to reason that while media-reported pit bull attacks include both adults and children, media reports about other types of dogs' attacks may only be considered newsworthy when a child is involved. Thus, it may appear that pit bulls are overrepresented in attacks on adults.

Misunderstanding of dog behavior and ignorance about breed standards

They [pit bulls] are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.

All dogs exhibit warning signs. Pit bull expert Diane Jessup, a retired animal control officer and police dog trainer, stated in her book The Working Pit Bull, "all Pit Bulls do give some warning that they are going to attack."Studies have indicated that, generally, people do not understand dog body language. A person may not recognize that a dog standing very still, legs apart, tail waving slowly, is indicating an impending attack. When one cannot identify all possible threat behaviors, it might appear that a dog is attacking without warning. Clifton provides no evidence to show that victims are oblivious to impending attacks by pit bulls at a greater rate than impending attacks by other dogs.

Clifton's statement that pit bulls' tails are customarily docked demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the breed-type. A list of traditionally docked breeds can be found on the Council of Docked Breeds website (http://www.cdb.org/list.htm). None of the pit bull breeds, to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrer, can be found on this list. Nor can any of the breeds that are occasionally mistaken to be "pit bulls," such as the American Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, and Bull Terrier. Tail docking has never been common or customary with any of the pit bull types. Docking the tail of an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier means immediate disqualification from the show ring.

To substantiate his assertions that 1) pit bulls customarily have their tails docked, and 2) tail docking results in an inability for people to read canine body language, Clifton would need to provide evidence that a disproportionate number of pit bulls or attacking dogs have had their tails docked, and further, that a dog's tail is the primary predictor of an impending attack. He provides no such evidence.

There are over 50 different breeds of dogs, including the Cocker Spaniel, Airedale Terrier, German pointer, Jack Russell Terrier, Poodle, and Corgi, whose tails are traditionally docked. (Council of Docked Breeds) If tail docking inhibits the communication of impending aggression, why are tail-less breeds not disproportionately represented in any list of severe and fatal attacks?

Excuses for some breeds' behavior

Rottweilers . . . seem to show up disproportionately often in the mauling, killing, and maiming statistics simply because they are both quite popular and very powerful . . .

Clifton excuses Rottweilers' attacks due to the fact that they are both popular and powerful. Yet pit bulls, who are also popular and strong, are not given this same excuse.
In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs. None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the part of an otherwise healthy dog. [sic]

Here Clifton excuses German Shepherd attacks due to outside factors. This implies that no other type of dog in his study attacked because it was left neglected, abused, chained or left untrained and unsocialized. Yet he offers no proof to substantiate the idea that all other cases he recorded involved trained, socialized, beloved family pets.
t is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.

Clifton implies that pit bulls and Rottweilers no longer behave like dogs under extra-ordinary circumstances. What those extra-ordinary circumstances are is unstated, and how pit bulls and Rottweilers suddenly become behaviorally different under those circumstances is not demonstrated in the report. To imply that pit bulls and Rottweilers are not to be regarded as dogs even though they act like ordinary canines is absurd. Clifton's agenda is quite clear—he badly wishes to portray pit bulls and Rottweilers as somehow unique—but his "study" is so flawed that he cannot prove any of his sweeping generalizations.



Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk.

Here Clifton returns to the idea that, somehow, we can calculate the "riskiness" or "relative danger" of particular breeds or types of dogs. As demonstrated earlier in this article, it is not possible to do this. Furthermore, it is totally bizarre to say that temperament is not an issue. Temperament plays a huge part in dog attacks, as any canine behaviorist or dog bite researcher would agree. A very large dog may be able to do a lot of damage if

it bites someone, but if the dog is extremely placid by nature (temperament), there's very little danger to the public. On the contrary, a smaller dog may do less damage if it attacks, but if it is extremely aggressive, it could maul or kill someone. To suggest that temperament isn't even relevant is ridiculous.

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed—and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's own "study" disproves his assertions. His own tally of severe and fatal dog attacks includes over 50 different types and breeds of dogs. It seems clear that dogs of all types can have "bad moments" that result in severe injury. Study conclusion

Clifton concludes in his article that he "[does] not know how an effective, fair, enforceable, humane dangerous dog law could be constructed." He goes on to propose breed-specific legislation as the solution to dangerous dogs, yet provides no scientific evidence that BSL actually works.

LinkThis comes from a website that opposes breed specific legislation. I am sure some will say that suggests bias but it should be noted they support legislation against all breeds.

 

[MechEng]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

Actually they can and likely do. The Merritt Clifton study, referenced by Cunk, has been discussed at length. It is merely an attempt to compile media reports on dog attacks, there are a large number of inherent flaws built into the study.I know none of that will matter to you or BST because it supports your personal beliefs but the reality is the MC study has no scientific credibility and offers little, if any, information of value.

This is no lie

 

[Chaka]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

Actually they can and likely do. The Merritt Clifton study, referenced by Cunk, has been discussed at length. It is merely an attempt to compile media reports on dog attacks, there are a large number of inherent flaws built into the study.I know none of that will matter to you or BST because it supports your personal beliefs but the reality is the MC study has no scientific credibility and offers little, if any, information of value.

This is no lie

Congratulations although that has nothing to do with anything I posted.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

Actually they can and likely do. The Merritt Clifton study, referenced by Cunk, has been discussed at length. It is merely an attempt to compile media reports on dog attacks, there are a large number of inherent flaws built into the study.I know none of that will matter to you or BST because it supports your personal beliefs but the reality is the MC study has no scientific credibility and offers little, if any, information of value.

Nice, you pretty much ran the gambit on that one. Attacked the source and the validity of the outcome. Then attacked fellow board members.

That report was a bullseye. Reality agrees with it. So does the military (which trumps damn near everything).

You are ignoring the truth of pitbull breeding, they are simply performing as they were bred to do.

 

[eoMMan]

Don't remember seeing this posted here. Pretty interesting chart (PDF) listing different categories of injury with all breeds of dogs from 1982-2011 (US and Cananda). Chart

Check down at the bottom where they list the percentages of these categories for the most dangerous breeds of dogs combined.

Good stuff Cunk.All dogs breeds are not the same.

And that speaks directly to the Pitts breeding in that it regularly attacks/injures adults as well as children.

Which is different from every other breed, even wolf-mixes.

All this. The numbers don't lie.

Actually they can and likely do. The Merritt Clifton study, referenced by Cunk, has been discussed at length. It is merely an attempt to compile media reports on dog attacks, there are a large number of inherent flaws built into the study.I know none of that will matter to you or BST because it supports your personal beliefs but the reality is the MC study has no scientific credibility and offers little, if any, information of value.

Nice, you pretty much ran the gambit on that one. Attacked the source and the validity of the outcome. Then attacked fellow board members.

That report was a bullseye. Reality agrees with it. So does the military (which trumps damn near everything).

You are ignoring the truth of pitbull breeding, they are simply performing as they were bred to do.

I wish we could find a pitbull to gnaw down that long sig of yours.