My type of dog may only make up .000001% of dog attacks* but it makes up 100% of the dog attacks that have actually occurred with kids in my home. In my home, Snowflake is notorious for attacking people, and yet, I still have her. And I have kids.
I also know several pit bulls, and none of them have attacked anyone ever.
At least my made up statistics have anecdotes behind them.
*as cited from Out-Of-Your-Ass
Hell, they’re doing it now. Let’s ask, I dunno, the AKC:
http://www.akc.org/breeds/staffordshire_bull_terrier/index.cfm
Money quote: "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is extremely courageous and obedient, highly intelligent and affectionate with a sense of humor. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog. "
Let’s ask a local government’s guide to Pit Bulls:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/Parks/LCAS/Pages/TipsforPitBullOwners.aspx
Money quote: “Pit Bulls Love Kids. Its a well known fact - Well managed, responsibly owned pit bulls are some of the best family dogs. The American Canine Temperament Test Society lists this breed as having one of the most stable temperaments of any of the purebreds, right up there with golden retrievers.”
[quote=“miss_elizabeth, post:321, topic:657969”]
My type of dog may only make up .000001% of dog attacks* but it makes up 100% of the dog attacks that have actually occurred with kids in my home. In my home, Snowflake is notorious for attacking people, and yet, I still have her. And I have kids.
I also know several pit bulls, and none of them have attacked anyone ever.
At least my made up statistics have anecdotes behind them.
THe question is still the same, your Maltese is known for not attacking people…a pit bull is…so why would one buy one with children in the home?
Chihuahuas are FAR MORE likely to bite than any Rottweiler or Pitt that I’ve encountered, but people don’t usually die from a chihuahua bite and people wouldn’t likely buy a newspaper to read about a chihuahua attack. So, the Pit and other bigger, stronger, tougher dogs come with an added responsibility. I don’t really get a sense from Pit / Rottweiler apologists that they get this. Saying that other breeds bite just as much is like saying that more people get hit with rocks every year than with bullets. It may be statistically true, but the damage being done is very real and very permanent. Having said all of that I have heard breeders say that in certain parts of the country, inbreeding has degraded the stability of some types of dogs. So, maybe it’s a few different things, but whatever it is, it seems like extremists on both sides are clouding what might be the sensible solution to the problem of dog attacks.
The point is, they’re not, really, in any meaningful way.
I’m not sure why you think that. I think most owners of medium to large breed dogs recognize this. In my experience, the little yappy dogs tend to be the biters and less behaved, but my speculation is that because they’re not likely to cause “real” damage, owners don’t have as much incentive to correct behavior. If you own a medium or large dog, you sure as shit have to be careful. Your dog bites and hurts someone you can lose your insurance, get sued, etc. It’s a very real responsibility.
You are just denying the reality that pit bulls attack and kill more than any other breed by a Euge percentage. Small dogs do not kill children
And I said that where?
No, they don’t. If they do, provide a cite from an actual study of dog breeds and attacks–it has already been cited in this thread that media reports of dog attacks are suspect when it comes to breed identification.
Unless they are very well trained, that is.
Small dogs can and have killed children (especially infants). Here’s a fairly recent case. I’ve heard of dogs as small as a Yorkshire Terrier killing infants. No small child should ever be unsupervised with ANY dog, no matter how small that dog may be.
Any dog that’s larger than about 40 pounds is potentially capable of killing an adult human. And many, many dog breeds have guarding instincts or hunting instincts that can be amped up to dangerous levels by morons who selectively breed for uninhibited aggression. That’s the problem with breed-specific legislation: the morons who deliberately try to create dangerous dogs will simply move on to a different breed once the current fad “bad dog” breed is banned. Dangerous dog legislation, which holds owners responsible for the behavior of their dogs, is the more effective way to go. Substituting killer Chesapeake Bay Retrievers or killer Standard Poodles (two name just two breeds with serious guarding instincts which are not generally thought of as aggressive by non-dog people) for killer Pit Bulls isn’t much of an improvement.
No true pit bull is dangerous. :dubious:
Call your home owners insurance actuary and try telling them that.
They will drop you like a dog with a bad case of fleas.
Farmers Insurance was the most recent to drop pit bulls.
Lemme be a little bit more clear: ANY poorly-trained or badly bred dog has the ability to be dangerous. A properly trained and well-bred dog of any breed is rarely dangerous. It’s as simple as that. A pit isn’t even a particularly powerful or large example of a dog–I linked bite pressure studies upthread that put them about middle of the pack and notably behind rottweilers and mastiffs.
I didn’t make up the data, either. “Pit Bull” means something, if we’re going to use it as a category–a mutt is a mutt, even if they share some phenotypical traits with pit bulls or staffordshire terriers.
Anecdotes are anecdotes, I know, but the most dangerous dogs I’ve known have all been either abused or belonged to people who deliberately wanted to have a mean, dangerous dog, REGARDLESS of breed. Was mostly Rottweilers in my hometown, but we were behind the times. Most dangerous dog I’ve ever seen, as in her vet technician and dog trainer owner kept him muzzled at literally all times unless she was alone with him, was a West Highland Terrier. Second most was a rescue mutt who was half black lab and half mastiff, both reasonably friendly and laid-back breeds in the popular imagination, but goddamn if she would’ve maimed literally every unknown male she saw until I reminded her to remember her place as omega dog.
I actually just called my homeowner’s insurance because I’m moving–amusingly for your argument, my insurer has expressly stated in press releases that they will insure pit bulls or any other dog that’s not a known biter, except in the one state (Ohio) where they’re legally required to discriminate. My agent confirmed that would be the case if I were to buy a pit bull (which every one of these threads makes me want to do a little more, even though I tend to prefer Corgis), even with the fact I also have a toddler and cats.
Farmers, meanwhile, hasn’t JUST dropped pit bulls–they’ve dropped (solidly enough for MY argument that Pits are not uniquely dangerous) coverage for pits, rottweilers, wolf hybrids, and dogs with a bite history.
And PetMD’s top 10 dogs for kids:
They also feature the Staff as
Meanwhile this article is pertinent.
Those dogs labelled as “Pits”? All had been being killed no matter how gentle they were.
Some various humane societies takes on Pits.
2. A fun fact vs Fiction from the Austin Humane Society.
3. Broward County’s:
It goes on …
I’ve been doing rescue greyhounds but a rescue Pit is beginning to appeal as a next dog. Nah, I love my couch potatos.
This is so funny. I see the same thing any time we try to identify something. Someone is going to say, “I don’t see this thing as the label you apply to this thing.”
As mentioned in another thread, when trying to standardize terminology, often we must look to an authority beyond dispute. A boss can call something whatever he wants and employees must abide.
Pits are identifiable. I’m sure they have been misidentified, but I wouldn’t use those instances as a benchmark.
You want to have your pit identified? Try to get insurance with Nationwide and send them a picture of your pit bull. They won’t insure you.
I once knew someone with a pit bull. She had pit puppies–at least I think they were pits. Some people here are thinking, "They were probably Golden Retrievers). All the dogs were very sweet. Compare that with another story.
I saw on the news there was a pit that mauled a 2 year old girl. The owner said that they had the dog for 7 years and it had always been sweet. This is one reason people don’t like pits.
Working dogs need to work or they aren’t happy. I know some jerk is going to find fault with that comment, but if you don’t give them some yard and some activity that lets them express that trait, they are going to be unhappy.
Pit’s were bred to fight, as far as I know. I don’t know about you, but I smell trouble.
I will say that, somewhere amongst the many studies cited in this thread, I came across something that makes me question my (admittedly very wishy-washy) view on the subject. It was a note that the genes responsible for pit bull phenotype were a tiny aspect of the canine genetic code–and that, much more importantly, they were not necessarily linked to any behavioral genes at all.
I do think that behavior can be bred for deliberately, and I do think that aspca is correct in suggesting that some folks breed both for pit bull phenotype and aggressive behavior, trying to get a particular trendy badass dog. But the idea that physical appearance has a significant genetic link to behavior appears to be undercut by that article.
At the same time, in other cases there does seem to be a link. The few Golden Retrievers I’ve known have all loved to fetch sticks, for example. And the beagles I’ve known love to bay.
So I’m even more wishy-washy than before.
Your post is full of mis-information, but I’ll just pick this one. Pit’s were bred to fight other dogs; they were bred to be docile to humans.