How do you explain the statistics??

Question

While writing a paper to be submitted to a local city council on the pros and cons of BSL, I came accross some startling facts. According to the CDC statistics on dog attacks and fatalities, in the past twenty years there have been over 100 fatalities and over one thousand reported attacks by APBT and similar breeds. In comparrison, there has only ever been one fatalitiy by a labrador, and that dog had been running wild (feral). There has been only two fatalities by a golden, one was rabid, the other was a strangulation. There are other breeds listed in the stats, but the top three contenders are APBT, Rotts, and sheppards. If the APBT is supposed to be such a gentle breed, how do you explain the statistic. These are actual stats gathered by the CDC from hospitals and health departments nationwide.

This is not from the media, these are actual statistics from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. This is not media hype, it's factual.

The golden strangled a toddler woth a leash that was tied to a tree.

If BSL doesn't work, how do propose stopping the "ghetto" from filling up with pits. Detroit alone has a population of over 1 million pitbulls, and the MHS euthanizes thousands every week. How do we stop the thug nation from breeding these dogs?

How do you educate thugs?? Face it, the "people" of the ghetto only care about drugs and violence and nothing will change that, not even education.

Answer 1

You kinda need to explain your acronyms, hon. I figured APBT was American Pit Bull Terrier, but what's a BSL?

At any rate, APBTs (now you got me doing it, ha ha) are not gentle dogs. Outwardly, yes, but every one of them has that "snap" potential. It's bred into them by stupid backyard breeders, and worse, thugs who breed them for fighting. I don't care what anyone says or how they try to defend these dogs: every one of them is a potential killer. And the tragic part is that it is NOT the fault of the animal - they can't help how they're bred. As always, bone-stupid human beings think only about themselves and do what they please and innocent animals suffer.

BB, T.Witch

Answer 2

Well, to give you a clue about how many people would easily say a pit bull.. look at some of the yahoo answer questions.. The what is the breeds with pics.. almost ALL of the ones i've read recently had about half of the people saying pit bull.. One looked like a great dane mixed with a lab.. but somehow someone got pit bull out of it.. (they said because of the square head.. which is the standard for the great dane.

Any dog with a brindle color (more common in boxers than pits), or with a bully breed look will be called a pit.. even if all they say is that it looks like it could POSSIBLY be mixed with a pit, it is labeled one.. These statistics are also based on the victims (or witnesses) who are at that moment in shock.

I remember not that long ago there was nationwide coverage of a "pit bull attack".. EVERY state had it on the news, and in the paper.. a few weeks later I saw a small "edit" in the paper.. it was not a pit, it was a lab/boxer mix.. did the retraction get published as widely? No, no one wants to admit to only reporting the pit attacks.

So, here's a quiz for you.. can you go look up the statistics for how many police dogs (German Shepards or Malinois mainly) attack people without provocation?.. Why?.. because they are taught to be aggressive.. That is the key factor in these..

I also notice you didn't get the reports of the Pomeranian killing a 6 week old baby, or the report of the "pit" eating a babies toes off.. which was soon hushed up because it was actually the families FERRET.. (after the dog had been put down because everyone jumped to a conclusion..note the parents were in the next room and didn't wake up with the baby screaming.. and yet were not held accountable.. the innocent dog was though)

Answer 3

I have seen that study too. A couple reasons I think.

First, many of the people that choose to own these dogs choose them for the purpose of having a "tough" dog. This is not the best class of owner. They are also the ones most likely not to neuter males or are more likely to tie them out, both of which are factors the CDC found are even more closely correlated to fatal dog bites than breed. They are also not likely to train them properly. So people are a large factor here.

But, these people also choose some of these breeds because they were bred originally for use in protection and fighting, and some of the breed characteristics, such as a tendency toward dominance or stubbornness can lead to a more aggressive dog if not trained properly. German Shepherds do beautifully at obedience training for example, but if they are bored, unneutered and tied out, they can become dangerously aggressive. Less dominant breeds tend to be more forgiving of poor handling and training and are less likely to bite, though other behavioral problems almost certainly will emerge.

Edit: The golden in the strangulation case playfully grabebd a scarf worn by a very small child and pulled on it in play. The child was killed. After review by the authorities, the owners relinquished the dog (they did not blame it, but could not bear to keep it) and the dog was spared and transported to another state and placed in an adoptive home with a family with no kids and was given a new name.

Answer 4

This is from a much longer letter which I have posted a link to. It is well worth reading.

"Now, let us address breed identification. Who is to say what a pit bull is? I have seen many crosses of breeds not even terrier or Rottie in background that can be mistaken as a Pit, Pit cross or Rottie cross. I have seen Lab/Shepherd crosses that looked Pit. Boxer crossed (Boxers are lovely dogs with great temperaments) with Lab that looked pit. Pit is often a catchall phrase used indiscriminately.

When I was starting out in dog training, I went to a seminar that addressed breed bans. The one thing that really stuck was when they asked an animal control officer to identify several dogs; he claimed they were all Pit or Pit crosses, Rottie or Rottie crosses. Not one was. The dogs were all champions of record and the breeds included a Boxer, a Lab, a Bullmastiff and a couple others. How reliable is this guy when deciding what dog is a Pit or not? Note: this was in a city and not some rural town. Supposedly the city employee knew his breeds! The other point was than bans will only affect the responsible owners and drive those who have no business owning ANY living creature further underground. And if they run out of one breed, they will go for another. Remember the Doberman, German Shepherd and Akita scares of the late 70's and in the 80's? Well, then these jerks found new breeds to destroy (Pit Bulls and Rottweilers) and are always looking for something no one else has to be that status symbol. This is why I think we are seeing some rare breeds involved in maulings. Again, the integrity of these breeds is being abused and misdirected and the dogs are being turned into weapons."

Answer 5

First of all, the stats tend to be skewed because the general public has no idea what a "pit bull" is, so if they're bitten by a medium sized, muscular looking dog they call it a pit bull. To give you an idea of how easily dogs are misidentified as pit bulls, I've personally heard the following called pits: boxers, beagles, pugs, vizslas, bull terriers, english bulldogs & rhodesian ridgebacks. And these are purebred dogs, nevermind the large number of mixed-breeds mistakenly referred to as pits.

BTW, the same thing tends to happen with german shepherds and to a lesser extent with rotts. If it's beige with some black and has kinda pointy ears, it's a shepherd. If it's large and black and tan, it's a rottie.

Then you add in the fact that pits are currently the "dog of choice" for idiots and thugs. This means that a large percentage of this breed is in the hands of people that should never own ANY dog, let alone a pit, and are at best not properly trained or socialized, and at worst are actually encouraged to be aggressive.

When you take these factors into consideration, it's actually amazing that less than .1% of all pitbulls are involved in biting incidents, meaning that 99.9% go through their lives without problems.

http://www.la-spca.org/dedication/talk/t_judge.htm

According to this page
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/legislation.php
"Search the Center for Disease Control site. Even the CDC supports the position that irresponsible owners, not breed, are the chief cause of dog bites. They have done studies that indicate that the most "dangerous breed" of dog changes with popularity and reputation."

Answer 6

Well, you have to take into consideration that the dogs listed as APBTs are not always APBTs.

These dogs are grouped under "Pit Bull Type Dogs" and include APBTs, AmStaffs, Staffies, and Mixes. That's 3+ breeds counted as 1...they don't do that with ANY OTHER BREED. Also, there are 26 Breeds commonly mistaken as Pit Bulls, and quite a few of those could be included under 'Pit Bull' in the bite statistics as well.

In addition, Pit Bulls are soaring in popularity...and are being very poorly bred and veryt irresponsibly owned. Most attacks occur when the dog is off-leash and unaccompanied. Why would any large breed be allowed to run off leash? Almost every dog attack for any breed can be traced back to irresponsible ownership.

Then you have those cases of mistaken identity. I recently read about a 135 pound pit who attacked a woman and her child. APBTs get to about 65 pounds, 80 generally being rare....AmStaffs and Staffies are considerably smaller. So, was this 135 pound dog an actual Pit Bull?? Likely not. A mix at best. If it was a Lab/Shepherd mix, it would have been referred to as a "Mutt"...but if it's a mix that even RESEMBLES a Bully breed, it's referred to in the media as a Pit Bull..no questions asked.

Truly unfair if you ask me.

EDIT: How do we stop it??? By not taking the easy way out.

There needs to be strictly enforced leash laws, and spay/neuter programs. There needs to be regulations in place, and education required for anybody wishing to own any large powerful breed. There needs to be harsher punishments for animal cruelty and neglect, selling puppies over the internet should be outlawed, and there needs to be a crack down on underground dog fighting and BYBs. There's our solution.

Answer 7

Does the CDC have a list of the circumstances surrounding each attack? For instance, how many unneutered males, how many animals free roaming streets, how many unattended behind fences, how many tied to a chain, the origin (pedigree) of each dog involved, the hours of socialization given, etc. etc.

Yes, larger, stronger breeds cause more serious injury and/or fatalities when they bite. HOWEVER- the bite frequency is much higher in breeds other than the ones you mentioned. Statistically speaking, Chows, Labs, Cockers, and Chihuahuas are far more likely to bite you than either a Rott or an APBT.

But I don't think a non-biased, complete study can be done without the extenuating circumstances being taken into account.

I was attacked by a German Shepherd when I was four years old and had severe damage done to one of my ears. The dog picked me up by the head and shook me. If adults hadn't been around.....

Do I hate or fear Shepherds? Completely the opposite. It's not the dog's fault. It was, in my case, the owner leaving it unattended while small children wandered through the yard day after day.

Luckily, I was fine. Wendy, the dog, was not. She was given away to another uncaring family member who tied her outside on a rope. Wendy chewed through the rope and on her way back home was killed by a car.

The dog pays the ultimate price for the human's stupidity.

EDIT: on the 'thug' problem: these dogs are part of an ongoing gang issue. The fighting dogs and the dogs used for attack are ALL tied with gangs who run drugs, do drive bys, etc. The only way to address the dogs with the gangs is to make the penalty for gang-related activities FAR more severe. Like life sentences for the drugs and the gang wars and the pimping and the dog fighting, etc. Death sentences for gang-related shootings. Period. I am normally against most death sentences, but these people are not only commiting individual crimes, they're living a LIFESTYLE of crime, a CULTURE of crime, that is so tempting to young, poor children that without extreme measures, the cycle will never be broken.

Answer 8

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/item.php?item=344

http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

Here are a couple of links which question the reliability of the CDC statistics... for the second link, you need to go to the bottom of the page.


ADDED:
"Extensive additional research* has resulted in locating and documenting 40 of the 89 fatalities for which the CDC could not locate newspaper articles reporting the incident and/or the breed of dog involved. Of the 40 fatal attacks not located in newspaper reports, 37 involved breeds of dogs other than a pit bull or pit bull type dog. "

It states on one of the sites I linked here that the CDC DOES INDEED utilize media reports for their studies... so I seriously question the validity of such a study.

ADDED: The owners, the "thugs" need to be policed more, rather than banning the breed. There needs to be more work done to prevent the breeding of fighting dogs. There needs to be more responsibility placed on the owners of dogs which do indeed cause injury. The sad thing is that if someone owns a dog that has attacked a person, then that dog is put down, the owner just gets another dog, poorly raising it again, and now you just have a new dog doing the same thing. Personally, people who have owned a dog which attacks and the circumstances are shown to be the fault of said owner, like neglect, training for aggression, etc... then that owner needs to not be allowed to own animals any more, or at the very least, be required to go thru extensive classes to LEARN about what they were doing wrong and shown what is appropriate and correct. Then maybe put them on a probationary period with a pet to see how they do, with things like training progress evaluations being part of this.

I just think that allowing people who have owned a proven dangerous dog to just get a new one to ruin is the worst thing and that this too should be policed.

FYI: The Michigan Humane Society has strict policy on adopting out Pit Bulls, they don't do it, period. Any dog that comes into their custody is put down, no if's, and's or but's about it. It is their policy to do this. Fortunately, many local shelters around have not adopted this policy.

Answer 9

So you are going to stop crime by making the owning of a dog illegal? Did that work with drugs? Did it work with alcohol? No. It gave all the criminals a great way to make tons of money.
You have not considered the fact that the pitt bull is the chosen breed for dog fighting, and because of that there would naturally be more attacks from this breed. If people had selected the chihuahua to breed and train for dog fighting all those years ago, you would want to ban them.
This is always the lazy answer we find to fix a problem of our own creation. We as humans have created a situation where there are dangerous dogs. How? By not cracking down on the people who go to the fights and gamble. By not cracking down on the breeders who breed and train dogs to fight.
Laziness will not fix this. History has proven that.
People stepping up and saying "this is wrong-I am going to report this to the police" is what will fix this.
But no, lets blame the poor dog in this, because that is the easy way out, and then we are not held accountable for anything.

FYI -Many years ago there was a report from the CDC that listed top ten breeds for dog bites along with the top ten most popular breeds owned. Isn't it odd how the most popular breed in the country had the most bites? Sheer volume skews numbers.

Answer 10

As others have said, you are relying on correct breed identification. Unfortunately, people don't identify breeds very well - their own or someone else's.

Also, because of all the media hype, people are more likely to report bites from Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and other "tough" dogs than they are bites from Cocker Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, and other "family" dogs. If every single bite were actually reported, you would see a very different story.

I highly recommend the book Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous by Janis Bradley. It really puts everything in perspective.

Answer 11

It is the owners. They have been bred to fight and now it is in their blood. You have to go to a reputable breeder to get a good PB. Out of those cases it doesn't tell you back round on the dog or why he attached. They just put it out there that they are APBT. The statistics might be right but what it the reasoning. Was the dog trained as a guard dog and someone came on their property? Was the dog bred and trained for fighting? Was the dog abused or was the victim doing something to dog and the dog was defending itself? There are a number of reasons on why a dog would attach someone but when it comes to the reports it doesn't tell you why. It is like oh you are a horrible dog cause you attacked someone. I don't believe that out of all of those attacks that it was only the dogs fault. I don't believe it. Chihuahuas are very vicious too but they are not big enough to kill anyone but everyone thinks that they are great. Believe what you want to believe what the statistic want you to think but I don't see them as a bad dog breed.