Owning a Dog

saf-t scissors said:
Sure they do. There are roughly 25-30 breeds commonly referred to as "pit bulls". That tends to skew the statistics.
Click to expand...


Like with all research...you have to be intelligent enough to check the credibility of your resources and not take something for face value. Correcting ignorance is not the responsibility of the people doing the study. If you're getting your stats from a chain email, then sure, you deserve to get bit...if you're getting it from the AKC, there's probably some merit.
 
Well... now I don't know WTF you're talking about, because the AKC doesn't even recognize the pit bull as a breed.
 
You don't think the AKC has some sort of authority or insight when discussing dogs? I was simply generalizing an example of information resources. Perhaps you would have preferred an example like info from an email vs. info from wiki vs. info from .org?????


FWIW...just because a dog isn't recognized by one or all of the kennels doesn't make it any less of a dog, and doesn't mean they won't determine the breeds standard and accept it further down the line. Some 'designer' dogs and popular mixes have become accepted this way.
 
No, you're just making shit up.

Why would the AKC, who doesn't recognize the "pit bull" as a breed of dog, single out said animal as the predominant source of attacks? Oh, right... because they didn't.

If we want to talk about things they actually DID say, we could consider that they single out the Staff Terrier, Am Staff Terrier, and the Bull Terrier (three AKC-recognized breeds commonly mistaken as pit bulls) as being excellent breeds for families, and particularly good dogs with children.

If you want to make straw men, take a fawking art class.
 
I'd like to know where I ever said the AKC did this study? The original intent of my statement was simply to say email info=bad, credible source=good. Nothing more nothing less, nowhere did I mean for anyone to assume I meant the AKC was picking on the poor little pit bulls.


I'm sorry...after going back and reading this statement:

UTfball68 said:
Like with all research...you have to be intelligent enough to check the credibility of your resources and not take something for face value. Correcting ignorance is not the responsibility of the people doing the study. If you're getting your stats from a chain email, then sure, you deserve to get bit...if you're getting it from the AKC, there's probably some merit.
Click to expand...


I don't see anywhere where I had said the AKC was conducting studies on pit bulls. The entire intent of that statement was basis of credibility.
 
Nissan11 said:
No, it specifically states the #1 dog for attacks on humans is the AKC certified purebred pit bull.
Those stats don't even include the pits that come from backyard breeders.
Click to expand...


Id like to see this documented.
#1 I am not pit bull fan...
#2 the APBT looks nothing like what most people refer to as pit bulls
#3 Every study i have ever seen has listed chihuahua and rat terriers as the #1 most likely to bite.
#4 How do you learn that a bite is from a registered pit bull?
 
Nissan11 said:
No, it specifically states the #1 dog for attacks on humans is the AKC certified purebred pit bull.
Those stats don't even include the pits that come from backyard breeders.
Click to expand...

Fawk, I missed this.

So Nissan11 is the one responsible for the stupidity that's running all over the floor?
 
UTfball68 said:
I'd like to know where I ever said the AKC did this study? The original intent of my statement was simply to say email info=bad, credible source=good. Nothing more nothing less, nowhere did I mean for anyone to assume I meant the AKC was picking on the poor little pit bulls.
I'm sorry...after going back and reading this statement:
I don't see anywhere where I had said the AKC was conducting studies on pit bulls. The entire intent of that statement was basis of credibility.
Click to expand...

It sure reads like you're trying to set up a straw man. It's a couple posts before that where you said you have some study and "the numbers don't lie". When I called you out on it, your response was "What? We shouldn't trust what the AKC says?"

:shaking:
 
^^^Gotcha, I wasn't trying to set up anything, two different trains of thought on my part, sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. But yeah, I understand your point, hell I skew and try to verify skewed numbers for a living. It's difficult to get a legitimate number when you don't have a 'standard' for what a pit bull is and different breeds get lumped together.
 
Ruh ro rorge this argument just took a turn for tha "I'll shut up and walk away now status" I've said what I needed to say and you guys now know how I feel. I love a good clean argument but this one can't be won. So have fun and ill keep reading
 
I think the lesser point is that 'pit bull' is a subjective term. Just take a look through this page

I think the larger points were made by fsj80...

Terriers and other working or sporting breeds are bred to be eager to please. The large terriers, specifically, are bred to be ridiculously eager to please and devoted to their people. They were bred to bait bulls and bears and to fight each other. That was 200-ish years ago, but that was what was considered sport/entertainment at the time. Aggression toward humans was intolerable and animals were destroyed.

Poor training and handling can make any animal unstable and unpredictable. A dog can be great with people and even with cats, but go ape on another dog... or go ape on people in uniforms or only men or any other variation. It is unacceptable to have an unstable, unpredictable animal unsupervised or loose. There are people who take on these issues, but they sign on to keep control of the situation in which they place the dog... they put it somewhere it feels safe when people visit or whatever works. Trusting an unknown animal is always a mistake.

I've known several great 'pits' and I've known some who were great most of the time... breeding, handling and personality go a long way. That goes for any breed.
 
The "facts" about these "statistics": Most of the studies are based on media reports, far more "pit bull attacks" make the news than "lab accidently bites childs hand off" because it drives ratings. Furthermore, "pit bull" is only a UKC recognized breed, the only actual pit bull is the american pit bull terrier, though any dog that looks even remotely similar is considered to be a pit bull by most anyone reporting the incedent. It is accepthed that the American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier are labeled as "pit bulls" though meny other breed and mixes end up with the label.

The "pit bull attacks" in the media are often cases of misidentification, sometimes grossly, here are several examples
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm

And just to prove that point:

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html

click and follow the instructions, see if you can locate the actual pit bull in the pics.

I personally have had a pit bull in the house for 98% of the last 28 years, yet nobody in my family has ever been attacked. My father was bitten on the leg by one of my current dogs while trying to seperate the neighbors chow mix from the smallest of my three pits, she came into the yard and latched onto my dog, dad grabbed my dog tryting to pull her away and my older female closed her eyes and lunged for the chow, unfortunately landing her bite on the back of dads calf. He yelled, she ran and hid. Didn't draw blood, did leave a couple of small bruises though. Hardly a mauling. In the same amount of time other members of my extended family have had dog bite incedents from thier labs and chesapeakes, hardly agressive breeds, but individual dogs with anger issues. My sister had a great dane that tried on several occasions to attack people, yet they are known as "gentle giants". A dogs behavior goes back to idnividual dogs and individual owners, not the breed as a whole. Just as most meth labs are in trailers and ran by white boys that doesn't make all white males trailer park meth cooks.

There's my $0.02...
 
saftscissors, you need to chill out. I understand you are passionate about this topic, but before you chimed in it was a great and calm discussion. I confused the AKC with the UKC in my earlier post, I opologize, sue me.

Im talking about the UKC and ADBA recognized "American Pit Bull Terrier"

Here are some statistics:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html


"The deadliest dogs

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

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 opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."



Another....

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf


The one thing I find ironic on that last CDC link I posted is the difference between pure bred pits vs coss bred pits.

The idea posted thus far is that its the 'hick' bred pits that are causing the problem, that quality bred pits are not an issue.

The CDC results show 66 pure bred pits related deaths while during the same period only 10 cross bred pit related deaths.


Here is another set of stats from a less creditable source, but it lists the sircumstances and story in each attack so it is a very interesting read.

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/01/2010-us-dog-bite-fatality-statistics.html
 
The problem with these studies and statistics are multiple though, the studies done by dogsbite.org are mostly based in media sources, while the government studies and Merritt Cliftons are based on reports taken from law enforcement and medical facilities. None of which are qualified to positively identify a dog as a purebreed or mix other than visually, nor are they going to be 100% sure of the actual breed, but rather report on thier best opinion of what the dog is. As far as "hick bred" or purebred, there are as many registered piss poorly bred dogs coming out of backyards and puppy mills as there are pure dogs with no papers such as two of my three. One of the three I have no clue of her bloodlines history. Either way, 78% of statistics are skewed to reinforce the authors point of view...
 
DemonDave said:
The problem with these studies and statistics are multiple though, the studies done by dogsbite.org are mostly based in media sources, while the government studies and Merritt Cliftons are based on reports taken from law enforcement and medical facilities. None of which are qualified to positively identify a dog as a purebreed or mix other than visually, nor are they going to be 100% sure of the actual breed, but rather report on thier best opinion of what the dog is. As far as "hick bred" or purebred, there are as many registered piss poorly bred dogs coming out of backyards and puppy mills as there are pure dogs with no papers such as two of my three. One of the three I have no clue of her bloodlines history. Either way, 78% of statistics are skewed to reinforce the authors point of view...
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying about not being able to 100% positively identify ANY dog species in an attack, but I also feel like you are suggesting the government (cdc) is skewing dog attack statistics to negatively affect pit bulls...
 
Nah, what I'm saying is that John Doe gets bit by a dog, isn't sure what it is but it was short haired and muscular so it gets called a pit bull, poilce report says pit bull, so the statistics say pit bull, yet the actual dog was a plott hound. The "skewed" remark was merely a joke, but the statistics are widely affected my misidentification. Not particularly the governments fault, but using reports based in inaccuracy to gather your statistics makes you just as at fault as the one who reports it wrongly to begin with I guess. A neat statistic most arent aware of is that the most common bite from a large breed dog in a vets office is from the Labrador Retriever, least common offenders are bull breeds, yet looking at dog populations by breed counting out of vet records there are as many pit bulls as labs found in vets offices.
 
Nissan11 said:
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
The one thing I find ironic on that last CDC link I posted is the difference between pure bred pits vs coss bred pits.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what makes you think that's a reputable source, other than it came from the CDC. They list "pit bull-type" as a "purebred" dog, when clearly the category accounts for a variety of non-specific breeds, none of which are identified. :shaking:

In other words, it's useless for statistical purposes, and we haven't even begun to question their methodology.
 
DemonDave said:
Nah, what I'm saying is that John Doe gets bit by a dog, isn't sure what it is but it was short haired and muscular so it gets called a pit bull, poilce report says pit bull, so the statistics say pit bull, yet the actual dog was a plott hound. The "skewed" remark was merely a joke, but the statistics are widely affected my misidentification. Not particularly the governments fault, but using reports based in inaccuracy to gather your statistics makes you just as at fault as the one who reports it wrongly to begin with I guess. A neat statistic most arent aware of is that the most common bite from a large breed dog in a vets office is from the Labrador Retriever, least common offenders are bull breeds, yet looking at dog populations by breed counting out of vet records there are as many pit bulls as labs found in vets offices.
Click to expand...


I see what you are saying and it is complicating my argument. The dogs that ate the horse alive MIGHT not have been pit bulls, and all the kids that are killed by REPORTED pit bulls might not actually have been killed by pit bulls, but by some sort of pit bull mix.
I still argue that though those stats might not be accurate, there are still just as many lab mixes, chow mixes, etc out there, so why do dogs that "look like" chows and labs not go around eating horses and kids at the rate of dogs that "look like pitts?"
 
Simple, when a lab bites a kid it's seen as a "freak accident" and likely never makes the news. If a Cane Corso in Spartanburg SC growls at a bird it's on the morning news in Los Angleles as a large pit bull attacking a pet mockingbird. When a lab attacks a neighbors kid, the kid must have been tormenting it, or it's a "rare case" but when a malnourished pit bull on a chain is getting beaten by the neighbors kids and it bites one, the dog was a "viscious killer" and gets passed around the country by the Associated Press. 20 years ago you never heard about pit bulls because the Rottwieler was the breed of choice for the media to portray as a horrible animal, 10 years before that it was the Doberman. The dogs haven't changed....
 
Summer of the Shark
 
So, for every pit bull or pit mix attack, you are saying there is an attack by another dog that isn't reported?
I guess when labs eat horses it doesn't make the news.
I see pit owners say all the time " she was such a loving and gentle member of the family, I had no idea she was capable of this."

It really doesn't matter, though. Nobody's mind is going to be changed here, and if every agency coming up with stats is incorrect and every media organization is bias against pitts, then maybe it's a national plot to exterminate Pitt bulls and Pitts really ARE gently creatures that don't eat horses and small children.
 
Nissan11 said:
It really doesn't matter, though. Nobody's mind is going to be changed here, and if every agency coming up with stats is incorrect and every media organization is bias against pitts, then maybe it's a national plot to exterminate Pitt bulls and Pitts really ARE gently creatures that don't eat horses and small children.
Click to expand...


It's like texting and driving, some folks consider it dangerous, others don't, but it generally takes a home-hitting tragedy to change someone's mind...and hopefully, most will probably never experience it and they'll be lucky. Some people choose to take that risk (or don't see it as a risk) and others don't (I"m one of them). If that makes me paranoid and brainwashed by the media, so be it.
 
I'm not saying pit bulls aren't capable, or even that it's something that can't or wont happen. I also never implicated that all breed will attack at the same ratio to others. What I am saying is that the statistics and media hype are grossly disproportionate to actual pit bull attacks, I will refer you back to this link http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm for a little reference, but I also realize that my 94lb pit bull that sleeps with a cat is a killer in your eyes. The scars across my knee are from a lab, the ones on my hands are from a Great Dane, those gentle family pets that don't cause trouble, but my dogs are likely to eat children and horses? Find some statistics on how many Labs are put down each year in lieu of adopting them out because of agression, oh wait, there aren't any. Go to your local shelter, then to your vets office, ask both which dogs they have the most agression issues with. Again ask both which they've had the least problems with. Then ask yourself whos "statistics" and opinions of a breed you trust the most, a politician, a news reporter, or an animal care professional.
 
Back
Top