American Pit Bull Terriers Banned

Pitbull/Rotweiler (sp?) attacks make up 50% of dog attacks in the USA since 2002. That is a majority.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Pitbull/Rotweiler (sp?) attacks make up 50% of dog attacks in the USA since 2002. That is a majority.

Actually it isn't as a majority is defined as more than 50%. As in 51% or more.

And that is also more than one breed combined there. Thus it is not in any way a majority.

Plus as far as I've read, the number also includes several other breeds (Dobermans and German Shepards, among others).

So no, pits are not in any way responsible for a majority of attacks.

True, but a 50% majority of overall attacks is a lot when taking into consideration that there are hundreds of different types of dogs.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Pitbull/Rotweiler (sp?) attacks make up 50% of dog attacks in the USA since 2002. That is a majority.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Here is an email that was sent out to CSU vet students when the ban happened here in Colorado.

"This type of breed specific legislation has been attempted in other cities. Statistically, these laws do NOT decrease the number of dog bites or attacks reported annually. Keep in mind that a Pomeranian killed an infant in 2000 and a jack Russell severely mauled a child in 2003.The concept of “dangerous breeds” stemmed from a CDC report looking at the number of fatal dog attacks between the 1979 to 1996 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm). Breeds associated with high fatal attack numbers included pit bulls (highest), rotties, Dobies, huskies, st. Bernard’s, etc. These were compared based on number of attacks alone, rather than the prevalence of attacks.

By way of example: If you had 1000 pit bulls in a city and 3 fatal attacks, but 100 cocker spaniels and 2 attacks, the pit bull would still be listed ahead of the cocker in terms of “Likeliness to attack.” However, statistically, the cocker would be the more aggressive of the two. The population of a certain breed of dog obviously greatly influences the number of bites reported. Now that Rottweilers are gaining in popularity, they are surpassing pit bulls in number of attacks. Furthermore, the CDC data only represents fatal attacks and does nothing to identify the breeds associated with much more common nonfatal, but often disfiguring, bites.

The CDC itself says, “Additional strategies to encourage responsible pet ownership and reduce dog bites include regulatory measures (e.g., licensing, neutering, and registration programs and programs to control unrestrained animals) and legislation (7). “Dangerous” dog laws focus on dogs of any breed that have exhibited harmful behavior (e.g., unprovoked attacks on persons or animals) and place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner. Because a dog’s tendency to bite depends on other factors in addition to genetics (e.g., medical and behavioral health, early experience, socialization and training, and victim behavior), such laws might be more effective than breed-specific legislation (7). These prevention strategies require further evaluation.” (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm)
It is vital to educate the public on responsible dog ownership and to take a hard-line with truly aggressive dogs. However, this breed specific legislation wastes tax dollars without addressing the problem. Please take a moment to sign the petition.

Thanks for your time,
Liz Gray
Elizabeth Gray, MS
Colorado State University PVM 2006
"

The other thing that I have always hated is the “unprovoked attack”, it is vary rare that it wasn’t unprovoked. Just because it is a child people don’t think that it can provoke a dog, children sudden movements, poking them in the eye or pinching them can frighten almost any dog to bite. The vast majority of people out there barely have understanding of animal behavior so they don’t understand what can provoke an animal to attack but the media sure loves to say that the dog just snapped and attacked me.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
The other thing that I have always hated is the “unprovoked attack”, it is vary rare that it wasn’t unprovoked. Just because it is a child people don’t think that it can provoke a dog, children sudden movements, poking them in the eye or pinching them can frighten almost any dog to bite. The vast majority of people out there barely have understanding of animal behavior so they don’t understand what can provoke an animal to attack but the media sure loves to say that the dog just snapped and attacked me.

To your quote there isn't really anything I can say to that. I'm not smart ebough 😮

As for your second part, I do agree to an extent. Children tend to to not realise that animals are pets, not toys. When I was a young kid my badass brat of a cousin would come over and actually hit my Black Lab with a baseball bat. I don't know why someone would be so crude to an animal like that, (My cousins your steriotypically gangster black kid, though. He's been in juvie three times already. ) but yeah I agree that more likely then not the Dog isbeing provoked in some way shape or form.

A special report of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) concerning breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 states that data may be biased for four reasons.
[list][*]Human dog-bite related fatalities reported are likely underestimated.
[*]Second, to the extent that attacks by one breed are more newsworthy than those of other breeds, their methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed.
[*]Identification of a dog' s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog).
[*]Last, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs.
[/list]

Originally posted by Storm
A special report of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) concerning breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 states that data may be biased for four reasons.
[list][*]Human dog-bite related fatalities reported are likely underestimated.
[*]Second, to the extent that attacks by one breed are more newsworthy than those of other breeds, their methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed.
[*]Identification of a dog' s breed may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the breed of a particular dog).
[*]Last, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred dogs.
[/list]

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
To your quote there isn't really anything I can say to that. I'm not smart ebough 😮

As for your second part, I do agree to an extent. Children tend to to not realise that animals are pets, not toys. When I was a young kid my badass brat of a cousin would come over and actually hit my Black Lab with a baseball bat. I don't know why someone would be so crude to an animal like that, (My cousins your steriotypically gangster black kid, though. He's been in juvie three times already. ) but yeah I agree that more likely then not the Dog isbeing provoked in some way shape or form.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
👆 This is the most important part "[b]By way of example: If you had 1000 pit bulls in a city and 3 fatal attacks, but 100 cocker spaniels and 2 attacks, the pit bull would still be listed ahead of the cocker in terms of “Likeliness to attack.” However, statistically, the cocker would be the more aggressive of the two." [/B]

That goes back to the point, when Pits attack, the attacks are far worse than when other dogs attack, that's why they make news headlines and why people are concerned. "40%+ of dog caused deaths are pit related."

Personally, I'd rather be attacked on 100 different occasions by Cocker Spaniels, than once by a Pit.

Originally posted by Robtard
That goes back to the point, when Pits attack, the attacks are far worse than when other dogs attack, that's why they make news headlines and why people are concerned. "40%+ of dog caused deaths are pit related."

Personally, I'd rather be attacked on 100 different occasions by Cocker Spaniels, than once by a Pit.

All of the below dogs were breed to be fighting dogs as well.
Bull terrier
Tosa Inu
Akita Inu
Sharpei
Ca de Bou
Dogo argentino
Presa Canario
Alano Español
Fila Brasileiro
Kerry Blue Terrier
Dogue de Bordeaux
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
American Pit Bull Terrier
Bulldog
Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Yes I agree that a Pitbull will do more damage than a Spaniel to an average adult, but any large breed dog such as Chows, Akitas and others are also in this breed of “killer dogs” but since their popularity is lower than Pitbulls their total number of attacks are “less” but in the percentage of the breed population they are more “likely” to attack than Pitbulls but that is not show in the reports.

All of the below dogs were breed to be fighting dogs as well.
Bull terrier
Tosa Inu
Akita Inu
Sharpei
Ca de Bou
Dogo argentino
Presa Canario
Alano Español
Fila Brasileiro
Kerry Blue Terrier
Dogue de Bordeaux
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
American Pit Bull Terrier
Bulldog
Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier

And yet of all dog caused deaths (many, many breeds), 40%+ are pit related. Point is, when pits attack, they are far more dangerous than other dogs.

Originally posted by Robtard
And yet of all dog caused deaths (many, many breeds), 40%+ are pit related. Point is, when pits attack, they are far more dangerous than other dogs.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Compared to other large breed fighting dogs they are not more dangerous than others, a Shepherd can kill you just as easily as a Pitbull, again the reason that there are more fatalities is that there is a much larger percent of Pitbulls compared to Shepherd in the population. They are banning them because they say they are more likely to attack which is false.

Wrong, Pitbulls make a very small percentage of the dog population.

I don't agree with the ban either, personally, I think people that own pits are foolish; I see it as a silly status symbol, regardless, they should be allowed to own them.

Instead of a ban on dogs that are highly capable of causing massive harm or death to humans, they should impose very strict punishments on the owners who own the dogs that maul, maim and kill. Your Pit, Rott, Mastiff etc. mauls ormaims someone, then you go to jail for a long time, similar to assault/bodily harm with a deadly weapon. Your dog kills someone, then your held accountable for murder with a deadly weapon. That sound fair to you Pit (it's how you raise them) owners?

Pits actually are not as agressive to humans as other dogs, like Rotts and Dobermans. Pits are more agressive to other dogs than humans, as alot were bred to be that way.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Pits actually are not as agressive to humans as other dogs, like Rotts and Dobermans. Pits are more agressive to other dogs than humans, as alot were bred to be that way.

So, as a staunch "my Pit is not aggressive" owner, would you agree to the laws that I stated?

Originally posted by Robtard
So, as a staunch "my Pit is not aggressive" owner, would you agree to the laws that I stated?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong, Pitbulls make a very small percentage of the dog population.

I don't agree with the ban either, personally, I think people that own pits are foolish; I see it as a silly status symbol, regardless, they should be allowed to own them.

Instead of a ban on dogs that are highly capable of causing massive harm or death to humans, they should impose very strict punishments on the owners who own the dogs that maul, maim and kill. Your Pit, Rott, Mastiff etc. mauls ormaims someone, then you go to jail for a long time, similar to assault/bodily harm with a deadly weapon. Your dog kills someone, then your held accountable for murder with a deadly weapon. That sound fair to you Pit (it's how you raise them) owners?

I think a ban on them would be the same as a ban on SUV’s; they are more likely to kill you than a Honda. I agree that there should be strict penalties to the owners of aggressive dogs no matter the breed or size and in many cases even criminal punishment.

My wife has been working as a vet tech for about ten years and has more trust with a Pit/Rot then any small dog she has ever worked with, not much proof I know but still a valid point.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
In compared to other fighting breed dogs they do make a larger number of the population, compared to other popular breeds such at labs they do not match the numbers. However you must also account for the number of dogs that are “unregistered”, plus a Pitbull is more of a class of dog than a specific breed and hard to calculate the total number.

I think a ban on them would be the same as a ban on SUV’s; they are more likely to kill you than a Honda. I agree that there should be strict penalties to the owners of aggressive dogs no matter the breed or size and in many cases even criminal punishment.

My wife has been working as a vet tech for about ten years and has more trust with a Pit/Rot then any small dog she has ever worked with, not much proof I know but still a valid point.

Little rat dogs like Chihuahuas are snappy little bastards, in my experience, what's a 2 pound little turd like that really going to do to a person though?

Smaller dogs are more likely to try eating you alive, Then a pit. Tho the Pit DOES have the ability to do so. But it doesnt mean all of them will.

Originally posted by Robtard
Little rat dogs like Chihuahuas are snappy little bastards, in my experience, what's a 2 pound little turd like that really going to do to a person though?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Not much to an adult besides bite their ankles, but can easily kill a baby or seriously harm a small child.

My opinion... when dealing with babies & small children, it's the parents responsibility and ultimately their fault when a dog bites/attacks the child. Children + Dogs = Constant Supervision.