Man kills pit bull who attacks his wife & dogs

[Roundeye]

*edit* One thing about his study that makes it suspect is he claims as much as 2/3 of all the dog attacks were unprovoked and no warning given by the dog. I submit that people just don't know what to look for in the dog's body language.

Again, I refer you to the man who completed and published the study.http://www.bestfriends.org/nomorehomelesspets/weeklyforum/biomclifton.cfm  I think it would be a reasonable statement to say that the man knows a thing or two about canine behavior.

If you are refering to the victims' statements to him, I submit that he would not have included that statement in his findings if he did not himself concur.

[Elfie]

Really?  The Clifton study shows a total of 2209 "attacks causing bodily harm" by all breeds included in the study.  Of those, the Pit Bull Terrier is responsible for 1110 of them. 

Some quick math will show that all other breeds account for 1099 attacks.  1110 is greater than 1099.  Am I missing something?

Did you even read the entire study yourself?

The opening statement:

Reports are logged as received, and the current log is printed out as
requested. Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts
since 1982, this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified
breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others
with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets. Due to the exclusion
of dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, this is by no means a complete
list of fatal and otherwise serious dog attacks. Attacks by police dogs,
guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight are also excluded.
"Attacks doing bodily harm" includes all fatalities, maimings, and other
injuries requiring extensive hospital treatment. "Maimings" includes
permanent disfigurement or loss of a limb. Where there is an asterisk (*),
please see footnotes. If there are more "attacks" than "victims," it means
that there were multiple dogs involved in some attacks. If the numbers of
"victims" does not equal the numbers of "deaths" and "maimings," it means
that some of the victims -- in attacks in which some people were killed or
maimed -- were not killed or maimed.
Breed

This study does not include ALL bites, it only includes fatalities and serious harm.

[Elfie]

Again, I refer you to the man who completed and published the study.http://www.bestfriends.org/nomorehomelesspets/weeklyforum/biomclifton.cfm  I think it would be a reasonable statement to say that the man knows a thing or two about canine behavior.

If you are refering to the victims' statements to him, I submit that he would not have included that statement in his findings if he did not himself concur.

He's an editor.....big deal.

[Roundeye]

Did you even read the entire study yourself?

The opening statement:

This study does not include ALL bites, it only includes fatalities and serious harm.

Yes, I did.  Thoroughly.

Attacks causing fatalities and serious harm are the only ones that pose a danger to society.  

[Elfie]

Yes, I did.  Thoroughly.

Attacks causing fatalities and serious harm are the only ones that pose a danger to society.  

Really? Dog bites in general cost this country billions in medical bills every year. Four to 5 million dog bites each year from all breeds.

[texasmom]

Just in our town's newspaper about a guy killing a dog who attacked him.
The article does make the tag-line sound like he's being wrongly accused of a safety violation for protecting himself, when he's actually being charged with firing a 'warning shot' up into the air before he shot to kill the attacking dog (which could have injured or killed someone in the neighborhood).  I agree with that;  and besides... if you're going to use a handgun, you better be aiming to kill on the first shot. 
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=30566

But I'm glad for him that he had a gun on him to kill the thing, even if he does spend a little jail time for carrying it without a license ~ at least he's alive.

[Roundeye]

Just in our town's newspaper about a guy killing a dog who attacked him.
The article does make the tag-line sound like he's being wrongly accused of a safety violation for protecting himself, when he's actually being charged with firing a 'warning shot' up into the air before he shot to kill the attacking dog (which could have injured or killed someone in the neighborhood).  I agree with that;  and besides... if you're going to use a handgun, you better be aiming to kill on the first shot. 
http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=30566

But I'm glad for him that he had a gun on him to kill the thing, even if he does spend a little jail time for carrying it without a license ~ at least he's alive.

The guy deserves a medal for ridding the neighborhood of another dangerous beast.

As for the charges, another example of "it's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6".

[smkelly13]

The guy deserves a medal for ridding the neighborhood of another dangerous beast.

As for the charges, another example of "it's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6".

By far one of my favorite phrases of all-time.

The pitbull broke down a fence.  That's just ridiculous.

[Roundeye]

The pitbull broke down a fence.  That's just ridiculous.

Sure is.  Owner should have understood his obligation to society and built a better fence.

[smkelly13]

Sure is.  Owner should have understood his obligation to society and built a better fence.

I'm sure he'll reinforce his fence with titanium from now on.