Another pit bull attack, link inside....

[sha_lyn]

Maybe you should tell that to the United Kennel Club, who recognizes the American Pitbull Terrier as a breed and most certainly has what appears to be a fairly thorough standard

LOL....did you read the link you posted?

Disqualifications
Unilateral or bilateral cryptorchid. Viciousness or extreme shyness. Unilateral or bilateral deafness. Bobbed tail. Albinism. Merle. Long coat.

So that should end all the "pit" bashing right now. Viciousness is not a standard of the breed.

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

Ok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier - this one looks similar, though not in color.
http://www.pbrc.net/album_tributes/gallery2.html - here is a whole gallery. Some are fatter... er, sorry, 'fluffier', and again, colors differ. Still look similar.
http://www.bulldogbreeds.com/americanpitbullterrier.html The pit bull there looks like it.

What pictures did you see that didn't look similar to the one in the picture?

I didn't go to Wikopedia, it isn't a reliable source. I won't even let my 10 year-old do reasearch from it.

The PBRC link has this on it's home page.."The PBRC website is a virtual shelter and resource for owners and caretakers of American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and pit bull mixes." So which is which ? Like a basic argument of this kind of discussion, you can't lump them all together.

The Bulldogsbreed site it the one I originally looked at..I went through your link (which doesn't look that much like the dog in the test) and then to the link of "American Pit Bull Terriers"..Puppies aside, not one of the dogs on that page (I am assumming they are all American Pit Bull Terriers, since that is the link I clicked on) looks anything remotely like the one in the test.

My point is...and this is the way I think sometimes so bear with me ..is that the pro American Pit bull person who made up the test scewed it by chosing an American Pit Bull that looks nothing like the standard of the breed. Or if there are no standards, they way that most of the APB look. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the people that are serious breeders of this dog don't aspire to any standards of the breed, but that doens't make any sense to me.

 

[Kathi OD]

LOL....did you read the link you posted?



So that should end all the "pit" bashing right now. Viciousness is not a standard of the breed.

Yep, I read it. Doesn't mean that they aren't vicious...it means the dog will not win any awards if it displays viciousness. Seriously, do you think an organization is going to promote that viciousness be bred into an animal? They want that part of the breed's temperment to be erased through selective breeding, which can happen over time.

Drink some more KoolAid......if you truly think that, at this time, these dogs do not have a propensity to attack irrationally.

 

[mom2boys77]

o.k.

no. i was just making up an issue to get us off of the same old pit bull stuff. it worked for awhile, but the pit bull mentality took over. so everyone can relax about the trespassing issue. it was a made up issue.

 

[CathrynRose]

I would never consider coming on here and defending the breed or worse yet, suggesting that the fault lies with the child, rather than the animal.

I would. Why is some kid entering your fenced yard? Opening your gate?

LOL....did you read the link you posted?



So that should end all the "pit" bashing right now. Viciousness is not a standard of the breed.

Yes - it should.

My point is...and this is the way I think sometimes so bear with me ..is that the pro American Pit bull person who made up the test scewed it by chosing an American Pit Bull that looks nothing like the standard of the breed. Or if there are no standards, they way that most of the APB look. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the people that are serious breeders of this dog don't aspire to any standards of the breed, but that doens't make any sense to me.

Alrighty then.

Cant please anyone, aye? Everyone thinks the Pit advocates are out to pull the wool over your eyes. Got it.

 

[wvjules]

AND - with all the talk of how vicious pits are - that dog could have done much more severe damage to him. He didnt . That was a 'get the heck out of my yard' bite. WHICH JUST ABOUT ANY dog would do.

Have fun debating my breed again.

Huh? You own the breed?

In THIS story, I believe the child was wrong in entering the fenced in yard. The dog was doing what most good dogs do....protect its property/family. If it truly wanted to maim or kill the kid, it surely could have.

Oh, and I'm in no way, shape or form, a Pit Advocate.


ETA: when you all are calling a dog a pit or not a pit, are you including mixed breeds? b/c if its mixed with pit, i consider it a pit. my grandparents have 2 sharpei/pit mixes and i consider them pit.

 

[CathrynRose]

Huh? You own the breed?

In THIS story, I believe the child was wrong in entering the fenced in yard. The dog was doing what most good dogs do....protect its property/family. If it truly wanted to maim or kill the kid, it surely could have.

.

Lord!!! Are you serious???

Its obvious that news links are scoured to report back to the DIS about Pits. If its not just Pits then why didnt I hear about the Fremont baby? Or the man chewed to the bone by his lab - both this week.

Same ol stuff - over and over.

 

[wvjules]

Lord!!! Are you serious???

Its obvious that news links are scoured to report back to the DIS about Pits. If its not just Pits then why didnt I hear about the Fremont baby? Or the man chewed to the bone by his lab - both this week.

Same ol stuff - over and over.

Sweetie, stop being so defensive. I think i'm actually agreeing with you in this particular case.

 

[jrmasm]

Yes, its called responibility.



1) My cats DO NOT roam.
2) My family does not go in our neighbor's yard without permission.

Let's look at it this way. A homeowner puts in a pool. They yard has a 6 ft. wooden fence. But one day, some kids scale the fence to come swim. Someone gets hurt. Guess who is liable?

It sure as heck should not the homeowner that was likely incompliance with local law.


And btw, that was a generic 'you' in my post. Can't imagine why you would think otherwise.

 

[noodleknitter]

Yep, I read it. Doesn't mean that they aren't vicious...it means the dog will not win any awards if it displays viciousness. Seriously, do you think an organization is going to promote that viciousness be bred into an animal? They want that part of the breed's temperment to be erased through selective breeding, which can happen over time.

Good point.

 

[Chipmunk89]

It sure as heck should not the homeowner that was likely incompliance with local law.

Think again.

 

[CathrynRose]

An Analysis of the CDC Study


The critical flaw in the CDC's study was the attempt to isolate a factor (breed) which could not be isolated and was impossible to verify.



Of all the more tangible circumstances surrounding a dog attack (sex of dog, reproductive status of dog, location of dog, relationship of dog to victim), the CDC chose, for unknown reasons, the most problematic and least reliable aspect on which to base their study.



Without any legitimate way to identify or verify breeds of dogs, and while knowing that mixed breed dogs make up a significant portion of dogs in the U.S.; the CDC, nevertheless, sought out and attempted to acquire breed information. Since there was, and still is, no national recording system that keeps track of the events surrounding dogs bites, the CDC scanned newspaper articles for breed identifications in cases of fatal dog attacks.



In addition to using newspaper articles, the CDC excluded nearly 1/4 of the small sample population (n=320) due to the fact their source (i.e., newspapers) either failed to report the incident altogether or reported the incident but failed to "identify" a breed.



However, unlike the Clifton study listed above, the CDC recognized the flaws in their study and clearly stated that no conclusions on breed behaviors could be drawn from their data.



The CDC no longer keeps track of dog bite fatalities by breed.



** The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) released statement on the erroneous use and conclusions of the CDC study

 

[CathrynRose]

Media twistin' & a turnin'"

THE BOY AND THE DOG: A NEW YORK TRAGEDY



The Boy:

• A two-year old boy is bitten in the throat by his father's "guard" dog.
• The father faults his two-year-old son for crawling too close to the dog's food bowl.
• Two months later, the boy's visiting grandmother is attacked and bitten by the same dog. She requires treatment at the local hospital.
• The father is charged with owning a dangerous dog and owning an unlicensed dog.
• Child Protective Services monitors the father, child and home to ensure that his son is not exposed to the dog, which is still on the premises.
• Three months later, the boy is found, alone and unsupervised, in the backyard, crawling in high grass near the shore of a lake. His father says he is unconcerned, as the lake is “not very deep.”
• During the months following the guard dog is seen chained outside, but then disappears.
• Three years later, the father obtains new “family dog.

The Dog:

• At five-weeks of age, the tan, male pup is sold to a man - call him Owner # 2 - for $100.00
• One month later, Owner # 2 complains the 10-week-old puppy is "hard to house train" and gives the dog to a new owner, Owner # 3.
• Owner # 3 locks the dog in the basement and "forgets" to feed him.
• After a couple of months, the dog is given to Owner # 4, who feels sorry that the dog has been locked in the basement without food.
• Owner # 4 only keeps the dog for a couple of months before giving the dog to Owner # 5. Owner # 4 explains that she is moving, and cannot be bothered to take the dog with her.
• Owner # 5, the father in question, chains the dog to a large scrap metal heap.

Boy Meets Dog:

Owner # 5 has had the dog for less than a week when he allows his son to go out and feed the dog, which is still chained to the pile of scrap metal. Fifteen minutes later, the boy is found dead, lying amid the junk, entangled in the dog’s chain. The food bowl is found upside down and empty.



Two days later, Owner # 5 has the dog killed. He later pleads guilty to misdemeanor endangering the welfare of a child and is sentenced to one year conditional discharge – he is already on probation for another offense – and is prohibited from owning a dog for a year.



The news stories about this tragedy all described the dog as the “family dog.”

 

[sha_lyn]

Without any legitimate way to identify or verify breeds of dogs, and while knowing that mixed breed dogs make up a significant portion of dogs in the U.S.; the CDC, nevertheless, sought out and attempted to acquire breed information. Since there was, and still is, no national recording system that keeps track of the events surrounding dogs bites, the CDC scanned newspaper articles for breed identifications in cases of fatal dog attacks.

WOW.... that is down right scary that they wouldn't try to verify the information in any way. No wonder the study is considered invalid

 

[colleenlynn]

it's always tragic to hear of dog bites. i was bitten severely (several stitches) when i was little by a pekingese.

it seems many of you are simply uninformed and scared. yes, big dogs can be scary. but why this "breed", because it's the breed that sells news and unfortunately news is a competition sport.

remember the little rascals? petey the pup was a pit bull. i don't recall an episode of him attacking anything.

for those of you that think a pit bulls bite is more serious than other dogs of the same size, here's a quote and link to a paper that cites studies on the subject.

"The other study reviewed by Hockey (2003) involved reports of 2132 animal bites in 1993 to animal control authorities (Palm Beach County, 1993). All bites were graded for severity from 1 Very superficial wound requiring little or no first aid, to 5 Death. There were 143 pit bull attacks comprising 8% of all bites of which 16% had a severity of 3 or above (requiring medical attention). Corresponding figures for other popular breeds are Dalmatian 24%, Rottweiler 21%, Doberman 17%, Golden Retriever 16%, Labrador Retriever 16% and German Shepherd 12%. The review noted that in comparison to other popular breeds the figure for Pit Bulls does not appear to be excessive."
-- edba.org.au/PAPER[/url] FOR UAM CALOUNDRA - LINDA WATSON-1.pdf


also, pit bulls are used as service dogs and in k9 units in many places around the country; why don't these dogs "turn"? (you'll have to add the www)
.lawdogs.org
.forpitssake.org



for those that "never" hear of other breeds causing serious harm, here are a few links from some this year. how many breed names were in the headlines? (you'll have to add the www)

Jack Russell kills baby Jan 2008
.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x607060899
4 breeds (Labrador, German Shepherd, Boerbul and Spaniel) attack man april 2008
.dogflu.ca/04062008/11/dog_attack_ripps_mans_ears_and_genitals

German Shepherd mauls girl april 2008
.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/414344

German Shepherd attacks boy
.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8073985&nav=9Tai

Labrador attacks girl April 2008
.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/04/18/loved-family-pet-attacks-nine-year-old-girl-72703-20784478/

Golden Labrador puts boy in serious condition March 2008
.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/3/23/boy_2_attacked_by_family_dog.html

Cocker Spaniel attacks woman April 2008
www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2008/apr/29/ha-woman-badly-injured-in-dog-attack/

Boxers mauled woman May 2008
.wkyt.com/home/headlines/18765184.html

Golden Lab-type dog mauls little girl may 2008
newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/98550

Hunting dogs maul toddler May 2008
.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23680024-12377,00.html

English mastiff attack May 2008
.palestineherald.com/local/local_story_136040433.html

Chow-Husky mix attack May 2008
.palestineherald.com/local/local_story_136040433.html

Shepherd-chow cross mauls girl May 2008
.bclocalnews.com/news/19170209.html

any dog can bite and cause serious harm. when the population of a breed increases so do the number of bites. it used to be dobermans, were there no pit bulls at the time?

 

[sha_lyn]

any dog can bite and cause serious harm. when the population of a breed increases so do the number of bites. it used to be dobermans, were there no pit bulls at the tim

I've said it before but it bears repeating. In the 70's it was the german Shepard, in the 80's the doberman, 90's the roitweiler, and now in the '00 it is the APBT.

 

[jrmasm]

Think again.

You think it should be the homeowner if they are incompliance with local law?

 

[Va-bear]

Your % is not accurate. Ive been through this before.

Oh, well, I must have mssed it, so lets go thru it gain, if you would like to. What percents do you report? I am very interested because, sincerely, I only use numbers when I've seen them reported over and over by sources I find believable - so I'd like to hear what you've found. Is the population more than about 1 %, or less? And is it a significant difference or a small one? Thanks.

 

[sha_lyn]

Hey at least we can look at it this way. We haven't got ol' "their jaws are different from all other breeds and lock"

 

[colleenlynn]

here's a quote from the cdc site in regards to using their stats

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. 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."

(add www)
.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm


and before someone posts statistics using that "report" from cliffton, he only used data from media accounts that he could find. he also failed to include any citations in his "report". here is a site that refutes the stats used and provides accurate documentation. .nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites1.asp

example, the author of the report "located 264 fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada from 1982 to 2006 through the collection of newspaper articles. The Centers for Disease Control and the National Canine Research Council have documented 477 fatal dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada during this same period."