hypocrite

[Anaxogoras]

From http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite

The breeds most likely to kill

In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

    "Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

    * Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.

    * An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

    * Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

To learn more about dog attacks, see Why dogs bite people To learn about how to take some of the bite out of the dog bite epidemic, see Attorney Kenneth Phillips' 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.

[bozon]

Perhaps it is the owner and not the breed, but a really mean chihuahua cannot do as much damage through out his entire life as one pitbull/Rottweiler can do in one crazed moment.

A rabbit trained to attack is still less dangerous than a lion trained to sing kumbaya.

[Sox62]

Pit Bulls make up less than 3% of the dog population,yet they are involved in more than 50% of serious attacks.From 1979 to 1998,at least 25 breeds were involved in bite related deaths.Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50% of them.

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html

Plenty of other sites will show the same or similar statistics.It's not an accident.

[Anaxogoras]

Pit Bulls make up less than 3% of the dog population,yet they are involved in more than 50% of serious attacks.From 1979 to 1998,at least 25 breeds were involved in bite related deaths.Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were involved in more than 50% of them.

http://www.dogexpert.com/Dog%20Bite%20Statistics/DogBiteStatistics.html

Plenty of other sites will show the same or similar statistics.It's not an accident.

Yes, but remember that some people train/encourage their dogs to act as aggressive protectors of their home or property.  Which breeds do you think they choose for that task?  In other words, while the breeds themselves may have a potential for aggressive behavior, people select for it and provide the correct environment for the expression of that disposition.  If you could filter out all the cases of dog attacks where the dog was primarily a "yard-dog" those statistics would be much more significant.

[Fulmar]

The whole notion that one breed of dog is more prone to attack over anouther is a bunch of crap. I grew up with Labs, my best friend from age 7 through high school had a Chow and a Rottweiler, and my ex wife and I had a Pit Bull/Shepard mix for 15 years and raised both our kids with that dog. I've had many, many friends over the years that owned "vicious" dogs.

I've been bitten by a dog one time in my entire life after living around all breeds of dogs my entire life. Wanna guess which one bit me?  My Labrador Retriever when I was 14 bit me on my arm. 8 stiches and still have a scar.

It's not the dog, it's the owner.

Wait wait wait wait....isn't that one of the whole ideas of breeding?  Outside of physical characteristics, mentality (to an extent) is past onto the next generations?

[ROX]

If you are going to "divide" any extrapolated data for viscious vs nonvicious dog attacks, you'd need data from fatal and near fatal attacks, not simply from "dog bites".


Even a miniature chihuahua will bite if you give it a finger to bite on.  Will you die, or would a baby or child die?  No.  Wily little creatures, but not life threatening viscious to people or animals larger than themselves.


I have German Shephards.  I cannot remember ever hearing about a fatal attack by them, yet they are in the top 10 on the "dog bite" list (at least the last one I saw from the US Dept. of Health, records compiled by hospital/doctor/ER visits from a couple of years ago.)


We need to see vertfiable data on breed breakdown to fatal and near fatal attacks on people.  That's the only fair data you could trust to make a valid decision on visciousness by breed.


I don't personally think there are West Highland White Terriers and Schit-Tsu's out there just waiting to kill a human.



ROX

[Sox62]

Yes, but remember that some people train/encourage their dogs to act as aggressive protectors of their home or property.  Which breeds do you think they choose for that task?  In other words, while the breeds themselves may have a potential for aggressive behavior, people select for it and provide the correct environment for the expression of that disposition.  If you could filter out all the cases of dog attacks where the dog was primarily a "yard-dog" those statistics would be much more significant.

I suppose if you sewed wings on them they might be able to fly as well.

You're dealing in hypotheticals.I've done nothing more than put actual data out for you to see.

[Anaxogoras]

I suppose if you sewed wings on them they might be able to fly as well.

You're dealing in hypotheticals.I've done nothing more than put actual data out for you to see.

What's hypothetical about limiting the selection sample for the statistics on dog attacks?...Other than saying "that would be better."  I'm sorry, but to use the "hypothetical" attack on a suggestion for more significant statistics is a big fat fail.

[Hornet33]

My point is this. Take a litter of Pit Bulls and I take one home with me. Some gang banger takes one home with him.

I feed and water mine everyday on a consistent diet, take it for walks, play ball in the backyard with it along with my kids and neighbors. Obediance train it, and give that dog a loving, happy home, along with my other dogs.

The gang banger takes his home to a small apartment, feeds it when he remembers too with whatever he has on hand, never walks the dog, kicks the dog when it makes a mess in the apartment, and when he does interact or play with the dog he's seeing how strong the dog is by picking it up of the floor by a towl that the dog is biting on, and never lets the dog interact with other dogs.

Now both dogs get out one day and are running up and down the street. Which one do you think is more likely to attack someone or someones pet?


Take a real hard look at the Pit Bull attacks and then take an even harder look at the owners of those animals and the enviroment those animals were in and then say you can blame it all on the breed of dog.

Yes, Pit Bulls have been bread to be tough, strong dogs with a powerfull bite. They were also bread as a hunting dog for wild boar and other similar dangerous wild game. Those traits are the same ones that make them an excellent fighting dog. Nobody thinks a Jack Russel is a vicious dog, but they were bread to hunt badgers. A badger is mean freaking animal.

[Shuffler]

Yeah, you're right.  I use bastardizations I guess.
I do use a lot of those. I bet that could be an entirely new thread.

lol thing is.... most still recognize is as if you said catty. It could be considered slang slang. lol