Pit Bull Tragedy
As you probably know by now, 12-year old Nicholas Faibish of San Francisco was mauled to death by one or both of his family dogs on Friday. If you do, you probably know the breed of the dogs, too. When reporting on tragedies involving dogs, the MSM is consistently good about reporting the breeds of the dogs in question, provided that the dogs involved are or are believed to be pit bulls. Already one family member is trying to make political hay out of it:
Nicholas’ [sic] maternal grandfather, Colm Brennan, who owns the small apartment building on Lincoln Way, walked by with his Jack Russell terrier, pausing at the shrine.
“I’ll tell you what I would do: kill every pit bull in San Francisco,” a red-eyed Brennan said earlier between sobs. “I don’t like pit bulls, never have.”
“This is a lesson for people who have pit bulls and children. Don’t trust them,” said Brennan, adding that he hopes his grandson’s death will start a movement against the breed.
Never mind that pit bulls, as a group, have a better than average temperament. Never mind that Jack Russell Terriers, such as Brennan’s, don’t. Never mind that dogs as small as Pomeranians have been known to kill children when left with them unattended. Never mind any of that. All that matters is, Colm Brennan doesn’t like pit bulls, and therefore, you shouldn’t be allowed to have one.
The Frisco Chronicle story goes on to suggest to note, almost parenthetically, that the male dog was unneutered and that the female may have been in heat, itself a potentially deadly combination. Apparently, the primary caregiver had been out of town, and the house was empty in anticipation of a move, two other factors that may have freaked the dogs out. The article further suggests that both dogs were total sweethearts until they magically went bad on Friday:
A woman sitting by the shrine in a wheelchair identified herself as Maureen Faibish’s sister, Cathy French. She said the dogs had never given any indication that they might turn on the family.
“They had these dogs since they were puppies, and there was never a problem,” said French. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
That can’t be the whole story, though. According to the Associated Press account, some neighbors had a very different impression of the dogs’ overall temperament prior to the incident:
The dogs were described as “sweethearts,” by one neighbor but not everyone remembered them as particularly friendly.
Asked about the dogs’ behavior, 13-year-old neighbor Aaron Vinnick said: “Sometimes nice, sometimes mean.”
This suggests there may have been some early signals the dogs’ owners either didn’t see, or perhaps didn’t want to see. More than anything else, it suggests the following:
- Don’t breed dogs. If you are a commercial breeder, you’re probably going to ignore this bit of advice. If you’re not, don’t. Yes, there are a few rare, exotic breeds of dogs for whom the demand exceeds the supply. Pit bulls are not among them. Too many friendly, well-socialized pits get put down every day simply because there are too many of them out there and too few families willing to adopt them. Don’t make the problem worse. We probably need a few commercial breeders, but not as many as we have. We don’t need any “backyard breeders,” i.e., random dog owners who think it’s cool to make a little money on the side by breeding their pets, at all.
- Get your dogs spayed or neutered. Part of the reason to do this is #1; we don’t need more homeless dogs. An equally important part, however, is that unneutered males are far more likely to become aggressive than neutered ones.
- Never trust your dog around a child, unattended. Unless your child is the one who trained the dog, your dog probably doesn’t see him or her as an “alpha” to be deferred to, but as an “omega” to be treated as a play toy whenever the real alpha (that would be you) is not around to keep him in line. Pit bulls are generally quite good with kids, and both of my dogs utterly fawn over Xrlq 2.0 when we’re around. I don’t know how they’d act around him if we weren’t, and frankly, I’m not interested in finding out.
- Don’t surrender your pit bull solely because he’s a pit bull. Unfortunately, a number of people in the Bay Area have done just that in response to Friday’s tragedy. Your dog can’t read, so he isn’t going to up and copy Friday’s event as human copycat killers are wont to do. If he’s been a friendly, loyal companion for the past five years, he’ll probably continue to be one for the next, assuming he lives that long. If you are concerned, have him temperament-tested. If you just can’t bear to keep your pooch after reading about someone else’s tragedy, contact a pit-friendly rescue group such as Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pitbulls (BAD RAP). Don’t hand him over to county “shelter” if his only known or suspected offense is being a pit bull.
- Don’t assume your dog can’t attack people just because he isn’t a pit bull. This is the flip side of #4. What happened with these dogs could have happened with dogs of any breed - and does. It doesn’t happen often with any breed, but it can and sometimes does with every breed. When in doubt, consult a trainer. A dog may be man’s best friend, but he’s also the wolf’s nearest relative. Never forget that.
June 5th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Are you saying that a pit bull that has been raised as a family pet is no more likely to be dangerous than a golden retriever?
June 5th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
To his own family members or other friendly humans, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. When it comes to how they act toward other dogs, that’s a different matter.
June 5th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Can you point me to examples or statistics or discussions of well-raised golden retrievers attacking and killing friendly people, even if unneutered and near a female in heat? These events may be ignored by the press, but surely you must know of them in order to take the position you do.
I like most of what you write, but not here. I am a dog-racist, and you haven’t told me anything to make me change my mind. Anecdotes about Pomeranians won’t do it. Neither will the temperament data you link to: this data rates dogs on how well they behave on a typical walk through the park, and ranks them according to some score. I want to know which dog is more likely to viciously attack me or my children on a highly nontypical day. Based on what I’ve observed and what I think I know, I’m going to take my chances with the Retriever until I see some solid data to the contrary.
June 5th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
I don’t know about well-raised, but then again, it’s not clear how well these pits where raised, either. What I do know is that it’s not at all unheard of for a Golden Retriever to attack a child. Nor it is uncommon for labs, or any other breed large and strong enough to do it. The only thing that is uncommon is for the press to bother mentioning the dog’s breed unless it’s one of the “bad” breeds.
Stats are hard to come by and reliable ones harder still. I dealt with some of them when fisking Jon Katz and CW Nevius a little while back. The biggest problem is that we have only raw numbers, with no plausible estimates of the population size of each breed. Visit any shelter in a major city, and you’ll find it’s chock-full of pits and pit mixes, suggesting the breed is over-represented on the street. Another problem is that few if any of these studies make a serious effort to isolate good vs. bad socialization. Some people want bad dogs, and invariably, those people pick Dobermans, Rotties, Pits, GSDs, or whatever else the bad dog du jour is. They don’t get Golden Retrievers. Ergo, while a well-socialized pit may be just as friendly as a well-socialized Golden, the same will not be true of the average pit vs. the average Golden. Finally, a little perspective is in order; for all the hype about vicious dog bites, about 800,000 a year nationally require some medical attention, while a whopping 17 result in someone’s death - about 1/3 the number who get killed by lightning. By way of comparison, about 3.2 million automobile accidents every year result in personal injuries requiring medical treatment, and over 40,000 are fatal.
Ultimately, I rely more on experience than on stats that don’t really tell you much anyway. My experience, and that of just about everyone I know who’s had experience with the breed, is that they are human-friendly to a fault, i.e., they make lousy guard dogs. This is also consistent with their breeding history, which required them to fight other dogs to the death but not to bite the referee or even the enemy dog’s owner.
June 6th, 2005 at 7:16 am
[...] revious Post | Main |
Pets and bias
|By SayUncle|
Xrlq has the skinny on some media bias against dogs. Well, certain dogs that are politically incorrect. He [...]
June 6th, 2005 at 7:22 am
When I heard this story, Damnum was the first place I came, knowing you’d be on top of it. Here we go again — I’m hearing the calls for “ban all pit bulls” on the news, bla, bla, bla. Time to go for more walks in town and start the education campaign again.
“May I pet your dog? Ooooh what a sweet dog she is — she’s so soft! What kind of dog is she?”
“Pit bull”
*much backing away*
Insert Lecture Here….
*sigh*
This doesn’t happen when *other* dogs bite… “Ban all cocker spaniels!”
June 6th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Catching my eye: morning A through Z
Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning: Brazilian blogger Luís Afonso of swimming against the red tide presents an English translation of an article written by Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho for the Brazilian newspaper O Globo. Hat tip:
June 6th, 2005 at 10:43 am
12 years or so ago, a local family’s two rotties (approx 14 to 18 months old) got loose and attacked six people, sending one little girl to the hospital for some major repair surgery; she was riding her bike, and they knocked her down, and bit down to the bone in several locations - she recovered completely except for scarring.
I was impressed that the local reporting did not go on about big bad rotties, but rather they lousy owners, who hadn’t bothered to properly socialize their animals, complete with the woman who had bred one stating that a) none of the other dogs she had bred over many years had ever done anything similar, and b) if she had known how these people were going to treat the animal, she would never have let them have him.
The owners put the two dogs out in the yard, ignoring them all day, had boarded them in a kennel for months while they were having landscaping and remodelling done, and had never done any sort of obedience training. They also had not kept the dogs shots up to date. The local reportage finished up by pointing out that virtually any large breed can turn out the same way if treated this badly.
Based on personal experience, I’m a lot more leary of Great Danes than rotties or pits.
June 6th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
In my life, I was attacked by a dog exactly once. Still have the scar on my back to prove it. Anyone care to guess what breed attacked me?
It wasn’t a “vicious” pit bull, but rather a “friendly” golden retriever.
I shall be linking this post. #1-3 are especially huge (and, I think, appropriately numbered). I would add one, too: if you own a dog (or dogs), you socialize them with other people and other dogs early and often. A dog (no matter the breed) cannot know what behavior is appropriate unless they’re taught.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Unfortunately, we only have two kinds of evidence here to distinguish between pit bulls and golden retrievers:
anecdotes and bogus statistics.
I’ve discussed the bogus temperament statistics above, and other have pointed out that newspaper accounts may only reflect the bias of the reporters, and police records may only reflect the fact that bad people tend to raise breeds with bad reputations. An additional true but bogus statistic (see above) is that Spaniels tend to snap. But they do not tend to go for the groin or the throat.
The issue is NOT daily temperament; it is: how likely is the dog to have an off day where it viciously attacks someone in a potentially fatal way? I think it likely that a breed that was developed to be vicious to other dogs would be more likely to have such off days.
As far as poorly trained dogs go, I still think breed matters. My sister has a Chocolate Lab that is as poorly trained as any dog I’ve ever seen. If I don’t watch it carefully, it will steal my food; it will NOT go for my groin. It has not been taught not to eat people any more than it has been taught not to eat people’s food; it just doesn’t want to eat people.
For my last argument, consider the Far Side cartoons. What is so funny about wild packs of Poodles? After all, they are large, snappy dogs. The point is that even if they were to be raised in the wild, they wouldn’t be vicious enough to make it on their own.
I’m sure if I’d had tgircsh’s experiences with dogs, I would also be wary of Retrievers. If I’d ever been attacked by a shark, I would never go in the ocean again. But I have to stick with all the information available to me, however flawed, and I’m sticking with my Retriever.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
What “information” might that be, praytell? So far, you’ve done a fine job attacking the information everyone has produced to back up their positions, while offering none whatsoever to back up yours. Are you now arguing that Chocolate Labs never viciously attack people? If there’s one thing worse than”anectdotes and bogus statistics,” it’s a strongly-held opinion with no basis in fact whatsoever.
June 6th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Xrlq: Why praytell, must you be as vicious as people say your dogs are? Your tone is inappropriate, given that of my comments.
I’ve attacked as bogus, data from both sides, and I’m proud that I’ve offered no bogus data of my own. My opinion (which is not as strongly held as yours) is not based on nothing. My opinion is based on anecdotes, bogus data, and personal experience, as is yours.
I found your links to anecdotes about dangerous Retrievers interesting, and it would be nice to learn more about these incidents. I think you would serve your cause better if you talked more about these incidents that you claim are under-reported, and less about how your dogs haven’t attacked your children.
June 6th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Fair enough. The reason for my tone was that your prior comments kinda implied that you thought everyone else’s views were based on anectdotes and bogus statistics, while yours were based on something far more persuasive, but you just wouldn’t tell us what.
As to the underreported stuff, it’s kinda hard to expound on it much, precisely because it is underreported. I don’t have any such links handy at the moment, but I do remember more than a few cases in which I’ve read that someone was attacked either by a “pitbull,” or by a “dog” of undefined breed, and at least one where the headline said someone was mauled by a “pit bull,” only to have the first paragraph acknowledge that it was really 1/2 pit bull, and then volunteer four paragraphs later that the other half was … Chocolate Lab.
More examples of bias are here, but perhaps you can produce one of your own. Quick, off the top of your head, without looking/googling: In the highly publicized January 26, 2001 tragedy, San Francisco resident Diane Whipple was mauled to death by two neighbors’ dogs of what breed?
June 6th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
If I went from media stories, I would have a strongly held belief that only Republican lawmakers engage in any kind of shady behavior. Why? Because read a story about lawmaker mischief, if the mischevious was a Republican the story reads ” A Republican, John Doe, did X, Y, and Z.
If it’s a Democrat, invariably, it’s “Bill Smith might have possibly engaged in something like x, y, or z.” 5 paragraphs later. “Bill Smith caucuses with the Democrat party” (or it’s unmentioned, I’ve never seen a Republicans party status go unmentioned).
Doesn’t mean I’m foolish enough to believe that Republicans are more mischevious lawmakers than Dems, just that the media has a way it wants to portray both parties. Why should I think much differently here?
June 6th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Bingo.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
I have the scar above my eye from a dog attack as a child. I’d known the dog since it was a pup. It belonged to a neighbor. We met on the stairs heading up to the apartments. The dog was on its leash held by its owner and I leaned over to give it a hug goodnight, as children will, and as I had before. It went ballistic. The breed? An Old English Sheepdog.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
[...] q (pronounced “Jeff”), with whom I rarely agree on anything, has a post with which I agree wholeheartedly. The gist of the post concerns backlash against pit bulls [...]
June 6th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Joel B:
OT a bit, but apropos of your comment, the one recent incident that springs to mind for me was the “Tennessee Waltz” scandal. Here is the story from the local paper the day the news broke. I don’t see anything uneven about the way in which the party affiliations are given.
June 7th, 2005 at 4:04 am
On Dogs
While I mention XRLQ, don’t miss reading his excellent piece on family dogs and certain breeds. Important info there, and not likely what you’re expecting to read.
June 7th, 2005 at 5:07 am
[...] ot predisposed to obeying the law. Pit bulls have better than average temperament and, as Xrlq noted, are not represented fairly in the media. In fact, the media even reports when someone i [...]
June 7th, 2005 at 8:56 am
I couldn’t agree more, especially with #1 and #2, and Joel’s comment is right on the mark.
June 7th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Some stats or LTEC:
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html
Factors that are prominent in fatal dog attacks seem to be:
*reproductive status of dog
*the dog is leashed or in its yard (i.e., territorial)
*children are involved (kids can be mean to dogs)
June 7th, 2005 at 10:06 am
and a few federal judges don’t like medical marijuana so you shouldn’t be allowed to have it.
June 7th, 2005 at 11:34 am
I think “trying to make political hay out of it” is a gratuitously cruel and sneering description, considering the tragedy that the family just experienced. They are obviously devastated and are trying to ‘undo’ the mistake they made by warning others. Calling for a ban may be an overreaction, but it is not like they have always hated dogs or pit bulls and used someone’s tragedy to push their agenda.
Pit bulls are not like every other dog. I know because I have listened to their owners brag about their viciousness and staying power in an attack, about how they will die before letting go of a human limb. The saddest part is that the owners usually think that their choice of ‘mans best friend’ is a statement about them. It is, but not in a way that they think.
June 7th, 2005 at 11:57 am
“They” didn’t, but we’re not talking about “them.” We’re talking about one individual, the kid’s grandfather, who made it clear he’d always been anti-pit and had made no secret of it to his daughter. Even if this is 100% sincere, it’s an extremely insensitive thing to say about his daughter, coming dangerously close to “I told you so.”
I don’t know where you get your information about pit bulls dying before letting go of humans. Mine have gotten into some pretty nasty fights with other dogs, each of which I’ve had to break up. Each time the dogs took great pains to avoid biting me.
June 7th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
OK, it was only a grandfather and not a parent. I still don’t see how that reduces the latitude that should be given.
I noticed the ‘I warned them’ remark too, and cringed, but I bet he actually did and I bet that he regrets making the remark in front of the press. Most people WOULD warn a family against owning a pitbull.
I’ll be frank. I just don’t get the fascination some people have with dogs that have a reputation for viciousness and killpower. And while you may never have heard anyone bragging about the gripping power of a pitbull’s jaws, I don’t recall speaking to an owner who didn’t. But I’ll take your word for it as regards your own experience.
You’re defense of pitbulls seems to be that all dogs can kill in the right circumstances, which I doubt is true, unless you want to include infants and then that criteria would also condemn pet mice. The point is that pitbulls are bred to be fighters, to attack for keeps and a locale has a right to either ban them or hold their owners directly responsible when they do what they are bred to do. They are not weapons that an owner has complete control over, like a gun could be considered a tool that a human must actually use for it to do harm. They are animals as weapons and in their natural state they will attack strangers and obviously family members.
June 7th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Dogs that kill:
Are strong enough to kill their targets. (A Pom left on a bed with a 6 week old can kill it. So could a rabbit, under those circumstances. With your ordinary parent exercising ordinary care wrt access, most dog breeds won’t be in a position to kill without a lucky bike.)
Are typically unneutered.
Are stressed out, abused, or otherwise in unusual temper.
Kill someone other than their primary master/alpha - a kid, a stranger, especially a running one, etc.
Bull Terriers are often owned by abusive owners and are often unneutered. Controlling for that, they are no more violent than other dog breeds. What they are is strong - enormously so. So, when they do attack, they are much more likely to kill than the aforementioned Pomerainian.
Rotts, German Shepherds, Husky/Malmutes and Wolf crosses (and combinations thereof) are also that strong. (Note the difference between Rott stats and Doberman stats on the fataldogbites website - Rotts kill far more often, despite similar owner demographics and temper. The difference is size and strength.) Other dogs will attack just as often - the only dog which has ever bitten me was a dachshund. They just aren’t in a position to knock their target down, or strong enough to rip their throat out or face off or otherwise sever an artery. English Bulldogs are strong enough, but are too short. (and too uncommon to show up in the stats)
The ‘common’ breeds like Labs and Goldens aren’t quite strong enough to kill except under unusual circumstances(small target, or trained attack dog) or lucky attacks. Cockers obviously aren’t - most people can avoid being killed through the simple expedient of sitting up. Pit bulls are strong enough.
My experience is that Chows are the most aggressive breed while pit bulls reflect their owners’ personalities. Any dog can ’snap’ though, under the wrong circumstances.
Pits are dangerous, not because they are mean, not because they are vicious, but because they are powerful. If they do ’snap’, they are more likely to kill.
June 7th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Mike,
Pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs . Dog fighting, which is an abysmal practice, requires that the dogs fight each other but are tolerant of humans who intervene in the fights. As a result, they require almost extra socialization when it comes to animals. Some pit type dogs were bred to catch cattle and hogs.
Aggressiveness to humans is not inherent in them (as with any domesticated dog) and is typically the result of poor training and socialization; or the result of the dog being threatened; or the reproductive status of the animals.
Anyone who says a dog just snapped one day is likely lying or ignorant.
June 7th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
You’re not seriously suggesting that golden retrievers represent one scintilla of the hazard that pit bulls do, are you?
I’m sure it’s possible to find examples of retriever attacks, and examples of “sweet” pit bulls, but that’s not the point. We’re talking about the run of the mill dog, not the outliers.
Let’s face it - pit bulls were bred to kill. And, all too often, they do. Period.
I don’t want to hear this rubbish about pit bulls who were “…total sweethearts until they magically went bad…” There was nothing magical about it. It was bred to kill, and did. My golden retriever was bred to retrieve, and does. No surprises on either score.
Every dog is nice until it isn’t. If you wouldn’t leave your dog unattended around a child, you shouldn’t have the dog. Your uneasiness with doing so says it all.
June 7th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
“Can you point me to examples or statistics or discussions of well-raised golden retrievers attacking and killing friendly people, even if unneutered and near a female in heat?”
…
“Anecdotes about Pomeranians won’t do it.”
Hard person to please.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Damn right I am. Pits are a much worse problem for others dogs, as to people the risks are comparable (and very low in both cases).
Who’s “we?” This post is about an incident last Friday where a child was mauled to death by two dogs, something which, on average, occurs only 17 times per year nationwide. So of course we’re talking about outliers, not the millions upon millions of dogs that don’t kill people.
If we were talking about run of the mill pit bulls, they are very sweet dogs indeed. That’s how I ended up with 1 1/2 of them myself. Lord knows I didn’t seek out the breed.
Let’s face it, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Period. If you did, you’d know that attacking humans has never been part of their breeding history, nor was it even tolerated, any more than we’d tolerate human boxers who indiscrimately slug referees and spectators as well as their opponents. Pits are bred to fight other dogs, not people, not even hostile people. That’s why they make such crappy guard dogs; they’re too easy for burglars to make friends with.
Bollocks. You might just as well argue that anyone who is prudent enough to wear a seatbelt must be an unsafe driver. If that’s really what you think, go ahead, drive home without a seatbelt today. Chances are you won’t get in an accident. Then when (if) you get home, go out shopping for a few hours and leave your kid alone with your dog. Regardless of breed, the dog probably won’t attack him. Then you can end the day with a pleasant game of Russian Roulette. Just play once, of course; that way you probably won’t get shot.
Or, you can say “odds, schmodds,” do the sensible thing, and avoid taking unnecessary risks with any dogs, cars, guns, or anything else that probably won’t kill you but might. Your call.
June 8th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Fairfax County (Virginia) recently posted a list of “dangerous/vicious” dogs in the county.
http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/ps/ac/dangerous-dogs-2005.pdf
Notice there are more Lab/Golden Retrievers (counting the one crossbreed) on the list than Pit Bulls.
June 8th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
If you would leave your child unattended with your dog, you shouldn’t have the child. I don’t care what breed you have, this is asking for trouble. Kids, until a certain age, don’t understand how to handle an animal and what behaviors trigger prey responses in them.
And it’s amazing how pits were a non-issue until the last ten years or so; now all of a sudden, the entire breed is vicious and unpredictable and always has been. Someone check the Little Rascals for scars and missing limbs.
June 8th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Good point. I hear Petey was so vicious that his viciousness rubbed off on the kids, eventually causing one of them to murder his wife.
June 8th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
My god-daughter was attacked by a pittbull the other day and has suffered great emotional and physical damage. The point I would like to make is this was not the first attack and any animal who bites should not be allowed a second chance to bite again. I am a dog owner/lover and would put my dog down if he ever bit anyone. Pitbulls are just more dangerous. I don’t believe that pitbulls should be allowed in an area where there are children.
June 9th, 2005 at 5:29 am
And don’t forget the crocodile hunter’s dog Sookie was a pit. I also recall reading that the first certified hearing dog was a pit as well.
June 10th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
You know, it’s funny. I disagree with every political stance XRLQ takes. But I’m standing and cheering after reading this post. As a former guardian of a wonderful pit bull (now with my ex in Texas), I am as convinced as XRLQ that common sense prevents the kind of tragedy seen here.
June 10th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
For those that want boring stats here’s some (they’re govt ones & given that the Australian govts whose stats are quoted here have introduced “pitbull bans” I don’t think you can accuse them of any pro-pitbull bias). As an Australian myself, I tend to collect facts about what happens here.
Australian state NSW Dept of Local Government “REPORTED DOG ATTACK SURVEY” from 1996 through to 2001 (latest publicly available ) makes the following comments :
(The survey term “Bull terrier types” is described in the survey as “American Pit Bull Terrier; Bull Terrier; Pit Bull Terrier; Staffordshire”).
1996 “Bull Terrier types and Doberman were more likely to attack an animal or bird. (33 of the 38 reported attacks by a Bull Terrier type were on another animal or bird.)” http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/Files/Information/Rpt96.pdf
1997 “Of these breeds most commonly identified, German Shepherd, Cattle Dog Types, Collie Types, Doberman and Terrier Types were more likely to attack a person. (All attacks by Collie Type, Doberman and Terrier Types were on people.) Cross Breeds and Unknown breed were also more likely to attack people. Bull Terrier Types were more likely to attack another animal.” http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/Files/Information/Rpt97.pdf
1998 “Of these breeds most commonly identified Bull Terrier Types were more likely to attack another animal than a person while the remaining breeds were more likely to attack a person.” http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Rpt98-2.pdf
1999 “Of those breeds most commonly identified, Rottweilers and Bull Terrier types were more likely to attack another animal than a person.” http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/RPT99-y.pdf
2000 “Of those breeds most commonly identified, Rottweilers and Bull Terrier types were more likely to attack another animal than a person.” http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Rpt00-D.pdf
2001 “Bull Terrier types were more likely to attack another animal than a person” http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/rpt_jun_sep_01.pdf
NSW DLG Dog Attack comparison 1996-1999 (human vs animal attacks) http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/Files/Information/Compare.pdf
Extract of (Australian) Urban Animal Management conference 2004 with South Australian govt. attack severity info & population comparison http://au.geocities.com/ducatibruce/files/UAM2004extract.pdf (2 pages) Jack Russel Terrier owners should worry.
Original at http://www.ava.com.au/download.php?id=247&c=39 (55 pages)
Extract from “Which dogs bite” by SATHY with bite severity info Palm Beach County 1986-1993
http://au.geocities.com/ducatibruce/files/Fakta13extract.pdf (2 pages) fans of “cute & friendly” non pitbull dogs will not enjoy this one. Original at http://www.sathy.fi/SATHY-documents/Fakta13.pdf (28 pages)
enjoy (Punish the deed, not the Breed!)
;^)#
August 9th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
I personally own 2 Chocolate Labs that have been around children and other dogs their entire lives. There is no possible way that either of them could attack anyone - however my neighbor who lives 2 houses down owns 2 Yellow Labs and got both of them from a lab rescue, he got both animals BEFORE he had children and they are very sweet dogs, but one of them was seriously tortured by children as a puppy and into his 1st year. The dog is fine around the children my neighbor now has but has bitten 2 children in the neighborhood just riding by on their bikes, and a 3rd that pulled on his tail. Another acquaintance of mine from work had a 9yr old Golden Retriever that has now been put down by City Ordinance b/c he got out of the yard and bit 5 people. Every time I went to the house he would have to warn me to stay outside so he could put him up first but the dog just got more aggressive and ultimately due to all the incidences the city could not ignore the danger the animal represented. So yes the “good breeds” can be dangerous also, and Pitts, Rotts, and Dobs CAN be the biggest babies you’ve ever met, but they just require an owner that devotes the time to training & socializing them properly. Many breeds came about for various reasons and are no longer used in that capacity so to say they should be put down b/c that’s why they were bred is stupid. German Shepard’s are some of the most aggressive dogs around if you are not a member of the family but one of the most loyal and obedient and that’s why they are used as police dogs and MANY of those have killed ALOT of people but you don’t hear that breed being put on the chopping block do ya!
December 6th, 2005 at 9:46 am
i think that the new band on pit bulls is horible some ppl raise them bad why should every dog suffer?