That site says 386,000 people a year require treatment in an emergency room from a dog bite. Are you trying to say that because it doesn’t typically KILL you, a dog bite which puts you in the ER isn’t worth being afraid of?
Your site also suggests consulting animal experts and health professionals before deciding on a particular dog breed. That’s not advice I would expect an expert who thought no breed is more dangerous than any other breed to give.
Honestly though, all debate aside, do you really think a random stray cocker spaniel is just as dangerous as a random stray pit bull? Or is your position more along the lines of “some breeds are indeed more dangerous than others, but pit bulls have been unfairly demonized well beyond what they deserve”? The former position is just silly, but the latter one is certainly defensible.
Y’know how Charlie Brown always falls for Lucy holding out the football? That’s me.
This is far more craptastic than the Clifton report ever could be, and it’s astonishing that anyone doesn’t immediately see the problem. This blogger is calculating pit bull attacks reported in the media as a percentage of hospitalizations in the US due to dog bites. That’s like calculating the number of hairs on your head as a percentage of the number of raisins in a bowl of Raisin Bran, and trying to draw some conclusion from the result. The numbers are unrelated.
FWIW, gonzomax, your arguments don’t really rise to the level of arguments, either. The old saw applies here: the plural of anecdote ain’t data.
No, not exactly, although it’s funny you cite cocker spaniels as your “obviously a-ok friendly ol’ pooch”, as they are well-known for aggesssion issues. So much so that specificresearch has been conducted to explore why this breed has such a higher-than-average rate of aggression problems. The Cocker Spaniel Breed Council provides extensive counseling on temperament concerns. This problem is not specific to the US, a recent analysis of 1,040 cases of aggression seen at a veterinary teaching hospital in Spain found:
So my answer to your question is simply that I handle all random-source dogs of indeterminate history with equal caution, because I have no desire to be bitten by a cocker any more than I do a pit dog. This is exactly the same as my attitude toward dogs and children. I urge parents to supervise their children’s interactions with dogs of any breed or type, regardless of how I might view any given breed or individual in terms of temperament generalities.
I’m sure though that those research results are just a result of my obsessional, sappy delusion with my imaginary pit dogs. :rolleyes:
You’ll need to help me out here, some. Why are they unrelated?
Clifton’s numbers, the ones you and everyone else have been stroking yourselves over all thread long are lifted directly out of media reports. There is a clear problem with this methodology, but let’s set that aside for the moment, since as you assure us, Clifton’s methods reflect reality perfectly, and my dismissal of them is just sappy, delusional nonsense.
So… Clifton’s numbers of purported “attacks causing great bodily harm” don’t have any connection to the actual numbers of people hospitalized in the US due to dog attacks annually? Is this because pit bull attacks are reported in the media with some different frequency than attacks by other dogs? If Clifton’s numbers are so reliable, I wouldn’t expect you to believe this to be true. Taking Clifton’s findings, that 49 attacks per year on average by pit bulls cause great bodily harm, why can we not take that number and compare it to the total number of dog attacks each year causing great bodily harm?
…Or are you now trying to assure me that “pit bull attacks reported in the media” have no direct correlation with the actual frequency of severe dog attacks? Hairs are pretty different from raisins, and all.
If it is indeed the case that some pit bulls turn ferocious for no apparent reason, what is the explanation for the vast number of pit’s that don’t go beserk at the drop of a hat?
Are their owners just lucky it hasn’t happened yet?
If pit’s really were as nasty as some people on here are making them out to be, shouldn’t we expect to be seeing a lot more instances of their aggression being reported?
No more dangerous than, say, boxers, shepherds, great danes, dobermans, rottweilers, borzoi, various and sundry cur breeds, briards, akitas, shar-pei, chows, rhodesian ridgebacks, American bulldogs, any of the pastoral flock guardian breeds, and so on and so forth. They fall into a class of “medium to large working breed dogs” which necessitate more active management than sedentary breeds or, say, sporting and companion breeds which were selected for soft temperaments and close companionship.
If we’re talking about what breeds are most “dangerous” for children, I’d include frequently fearful breeds like Dalmations on the list.
They are all over the news with pit bull attacks. If all dogs are capable of snapage, pits will cause more damage. They are bred not to quit. That is why when kicked and punched, they keep on coming. Those characteristics have been bred for. Dog attacks are not rare,. When they hit the news they are generally pits. The cameras catch them coming back over and over. That is a trait of pit bulls. That is a reason they get so much bad press. That and the fact they dominate the statistics.
But, if every pit bull was like that, merely because of breeding and with no blame laid on the owners, don’t you think we’d be hearing of even more of these kind of events than we are now?
What % of pit bulls do you think are involved in these known pit bull related incidents?
And, even if they are more dangerous than the average dog, is that any reason to want to wipe them from the canine gene pool, rather than simply insist they are muzzled?
Ha! Between safety, pollution, and Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations the Feds as much as banned sports cars forty years ago. It took the manufacturers years to find ways to make cars fast and fun while still safe and clean. A Corvette from the mid-70s had (IIRC) 175hp and could barely break 100mph. The base engine in a 2010 Furd Fusion sedan also puts out 175hp. The engine in a 2010 Corvette ZR1 puts out 638hp and will take the car to over 200mph, but you would have a tough time killing yourself breathing its exhaust.
What do pollution and Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations have to do with reckless drivers, or laws put in place to regulate the behavior of people behind the wheel?
Okay. So, you agree that not all dogs are equally dangerous. That the ones you mention above probably, on average, cause more of a problem than others not on your list. I agree. But I see this is the initial way to slice it. After that, if one breed (any one of them) is bred to fight, selectively encouraging those traits that make it better at killing—both physically and tempermentally—that breed would be become MORE dangerous than if not so bred, wouldn’t it. And, therefore, MORE dangerous than those other dogs. Right?
…You do realize, of course, that a fair number of those breeds up there were bred to fight human beings, selectively encouraging those traits that would make them better at killing human beings both physically and temperamentally…right? That several of the breeds are bred to fight wolves, foxes or coyotes, a couple for lions or mountain lions, a whole bunch of them for wild boar…? So yes, I do agree with your statement–that dogs bred for battle-related work duties have stronger temperaments and greater potential for harm if involved in human conflict. As I said, many medium and large working breeds fit the bill, pit dogs no more so than any other.
So, in theory, if one of these breeds were bred to be even better fighters, be even more powerful, and be even more aggressive and unrelenting once they’re involved in a fight, that breed would be on a track to be potentially more dangerous than all the others. Correct?
You don’t think a wolfhound is expected to fight to the death? Or a pastoral flock guardian? You think Great Pyrenees breeders are peachy-keen and dandy if their flock guardian takes a powder because he gets concerned about his own skin? What about boar dogs? A hog dog that quits in the middle of a fight gets other dogs and the hunter killed, and you can most certainly bet that dog is going to get a quick bullet in the head if he manages to survive the fight after tucking tail and running.
You don’t think a lion hunting dog is bred to be a relentless killer once engaged?
What about protection dogs? Do you think that working doberman breeders breed dobies who, when they get smacked around a little, pack it up and go home? Any of the eastern European herding breeds (GSD, Malinois, etc), you think people spend fortunes and lives breeding dogs to chase and fight bad guys, but who give up when the going gets tough?
Thanks for not answering my question. I thought as much. But now I can leave you alone again and go debate Young Earth Creationists. My skills are so lacking I need an audience who is more open to reality and more open to the idea that they might be wrong. I’ll leave you to your Benign Pitbullism.
Okay, sure. Now, why don’t you go ahead and tell me how this hypothetical applies to a 35-40lb dog bred to fight other 35-45lb dogs, more so than any number of 80-100lb+ breeds bred to fight to the death against wolves, coyotes, lions, wild boar, or human beings?
They may have a proportional correlation, but not a one-to-one correlation (unless you’re suggesting that every single dog attack is reported in the media–edit–or suggesting that a sample is necessarily unrepresentative).
If the blog’s method of analysis is correct–if we may consider number of media-reported cases as a percentage of hospital-reported cases to determine how many bites a particular subgroup is responsible for–then a much more alarming trend emerges. We just need to apply this analysis on the species, rather than the breed, level.
Look at the analysis again:
Now we see that there were 2,209 dog attacks doing serious bodily harm in a certain 24-year period, or roughly 92 per year. There were 6,000 or so hospitalizations each year due to severe dog bites. Apparently, only 1.5% of all dog bites are caused by dogs!
Which, as I promised, raises a much more alarming question: who’s causing the other 98.5% of dog bites? Is it cats with prosthetic dog teeth implants? Dog-headed aliens from the Sirius system? Werewolves?
Or maybe–just maybe–the media presents a sample (representative or not remains to be determined) of dog bites, not all of them. In which case the werewolf threat may be overstated.
Edit: incidentally, check it out, and please knock it off.
I’ve been bitten by a cocker spaniel when I was a paper boy. Drew a little blood from my outstretched hand ready to pet , settled down and then wagged its tail. No big deal. Everyday it would come out aggressively barking at me and settle down friendly like when he got closer. Since then, no problem, I just didn’t pet him again.
To compare a cocker spaniel attack to a pit bull attack is ludicrous. Its almost like comparing a house cat attack with a lion attack. Even if the lion is cute Elsa.