Dog Bite

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Only thing is, living animals do have a brain that can't always be controlled by the owner - no matter how "well trained". Pit Bulls seem to "snap" easier than other breeds, and when they do it's not a pretty sight.

Tools, guns and arrows don't have brains, so they can be fully controlled, unlike animals.


Totally agree that you can't control an animal 100%. There is always *some* risk. Most societies have settled on the fact that dogs are worth risk.

As far as pitbull's more likely to "snap", that's a misconception which simply isn't true. If there is a dog that's likely to exhibit unwanted aggression towards humans, it's typically one of the guardian-type breeds. Pitbulls are typically poor guardians, and not surprisingly tend to do well on temperament tests.

That doesn't mean you can train genetics out of the dog. They were originally bred to fight other dogs, and they can be aggressive towards other dogs. How much depends on the dog, although spaying and neutering reduces that tendency considerably. Again, it really depends on the temperament of the dog.

 

[AZjeff]

Originally Posted By: barkingspider
There are more dog bites from Labrador retrievers than pit bulls. Just a FYI. Its not the dog breed, its the owner. Its not the tool, its the fool. Its not the arrow, its the indian. Its not the gun, its the idiot behind it.


It's not about how many, it's about the severity of the injury. A dog is not a tool or a gun or an arrow. None of those are capable of injuring or killing of their own accord. Nobody has 100% control over any dog. To think so is dangerously foolish. No list of dangerous dogs has Labs on it, every list has pits as #1. Google "dog bites by breed" Dachshunds probably bite more people than pit bulls, so what?

This:

A review of 82 dog bite cases at a level 1 trauma center where the breed of dog was identified concludes that attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Bini, John K. MD; Cohn, Stephen M. MD; Acosta, Shirley M. RN, BSN; McFarland, Marilyn J. RN, MS; Muir, Mark T. MD; Michalek, Joel E. PhD; for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group, Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs, Annals of Surgery (April 2011, Vol. 253, Issue 4, pp. 791–797).

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening. According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: barkingspider
There are more dog bites from Labrador retrievers than pit bulls. Just a FYI. Its not the dog breed, its the owner. Its not the tool, its the fool. Its not the arrow, its the indian. Its not the gun, its the idiot behind it.

Say what you want. The pitt bull apologists always play this card. Pitts are bred to be aggressive. It truly is the "nature" of the beast. Like anything an individual dog or his family line may be fine and owners are certainly a factor.

But another person here saying there are more bites from Labs (and Retrievers)...lol...serious delusion. Labs unive3rsallyt are trusting dogs to a fault. You could train one to bite but I am 69 years old and never in my live have I come across a Lab or Retriever that I would be afraid to pet.

But.."whatever" as they say.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: barkingspider
Its not the arrow, its the indian.


Dot or feather?


Brave. You must not have an important job and/or an untraceable user name...

 

[MNgopher]

Originally Posted By: Al

But another person here saying there are more bites from Labs (and Retrievers)...lol...serious delusion. Labs unive3rsallyt are trusting dogs to a fault. You could train one to bite but I am 69 years old and never in my live have I come across a Lab or Retriever that I would be afraid to pet.


Universally trusting, ahh, no. Most labs are trusting dogs and not mean, but to say all of them is a stretch. And I say that growing up around labs, and currently owning one. I've met my share, and been bit by an agressive one.

I love the breed (labrador retrievers) as a whole, but to say they won't bite is foolhardy.

Sounds like the neighbors both "get it". Unfortunate, but the reality is there are dangers with any dog...

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: Al
Pitts are bred to be aggressive. It truly is the "nature" of the beast.


The old nature versus nurture question. I don't know enough about dogsa to have an opinion on whether certain dogs breeds are innately more aggressive than others, or if the behavor is simply an expression of the fog's upbringing and of bhavioral modifications. Certainly, some dog breeds have much more potential for doing greater immediate physical harm compare to other breeds. In that regard, dogs are like weapons. Pocket knife versus kukri, .22 versus .44 cal. One thing is sure: I'd rather deal with a small aggressive dog than with a more powerful aggressive dog.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: barkingspider
Its not the arrow, its the indian.


Dot or feather?


Brave. You must not have an important job and/or an untraceable user name...


That's what I get for an attempt at humor.

 

[barkingspider]

I never said anything about fatalities. I just repeated what I read. I didnt do the stats on it. And in this case, there was no fatalities either. So there is no fault in what I said. I understand the pit bull breed. I understand that many would never own one. I have no problem w that. Every dog can snap and can do damage, including killing. A lot has to do with the owner. FYI, I was bitten by dogs twice as a kid and once as an adult. The first was a small bichon frise mix, next was a lab and the last was a long hair saluki mix. No pits. Again, I understand people not wanting pits near or around them, I don't question or disagree w that. I'm just saying.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: artificialist
It is the owner, not the dog.

The only dogs that have ever bitten me were owned by crazy cat ladies. Some of them choose to have a chihuahua or mini poodle instead of cats.

I have met people who properly care for their bully breeds, and those dogs have zero behavior problems.


Your post reminds me of a former co-worker of mine. He raised a pit bull from the time it was a puppy and your statement is what we continually heard at work, that it's the fault of the owner, not the genetics of the dog.
Once day when the dog was about two years old, the post man came walking to the door to deliver the mail. The dog had seen the post man many times (probably not every week day, but just about...) but for some reason one day this dog jumped though the glass screen door and almost got the post man. My co-worker had a very hard time restraining the dog and dragging him back into the house and the post man was cowering in his little postal Jeep.
The dog was put down and the owner finally admitted, under the influence of a few beers, that he would have never believed it if he hadn't seen it.
Now I guess you could say that the same thing could have happened with about any breed. But perhaps it's just that the pit bull breeds make the news a lot more often, huh?

 

[expat]

The question is (in the neighborhood ) what might happen if the wife (victim) HAS to Lawyer-up because she can't work and pay the mortgage? (she is the main breadwinner)

Would household insurance cover any of this?

I know the family do not want to go this route, but they may not have a choice.

Should dog owners be required to carry insurance when you consider a case of an instance like this?

 

[AZjeff]

In the OP you said the dog owner is a responsible guy. Assuming that means decent homeowner's insurance. That will pay until it hits it's limit... then you get to see what people are made of.

 

[expat]

Yes he does seem very responsible, and concerned.

But also young and in his first house, possibly leveraged to the limit.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: expat

Should dog owners be required to carry insurance when you consider a case of an instance like this?


We have liability insurance on our dogs for that very reason. We have and have trained therapy dogs for over 30 years, and our dogs have never bit anyone (nor have they so much as growled at anyone). The liability insurance is protection for both us and the victim in the extremely slight chance that one of our dogs should ever bite. While it's not an issue on any of the breeds we've had in the past, it simply isn't available for the "pit bull" breeds at any sort of a reasonable cost. For our beagles it's $30/year.

That being said, I'd never have one of the breeds that makes up the "pit bull" breed. In our area absolutely no one will allow that breed to do therapy dog work-the risk is too high. I see far too many instances of pit bull attacks that are completely unprovoked. There seems to be a refusal of pit bull owners to admit that their dogs, any of their dogs, will attack unprovoked. Something as simple as a child holding a stuffed animal can be enough to set off a pit bull and cause it to seriously maim or kill that child.

The breed is descended from the original bull-baiting dog, a dog bred to bite and hold bulls and other large animals around the face and head. After baiting was outlawed, the dogs were crossed with terriers to produce a quicker and more agile dog-designed to fight other dogs. That level of breeding and instinct isn't bred out of an animal very easily.

 

[ClutchDisc]

Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
That being said, I'd never have one of the breeds that makes up the "pit bull" breed. In our area absolutely no one will allow that breed to do therapy dog work-the risk is too high. I see far too many instances of pit bull attacks that are completely unprovoked. There seems to be a refusal of pit bull owners to admit that their dogs, any of their dogs, will attack unprovoked. Something as simple as a child holding a stuffed animal can be enough to set off a pit bull and cause it to seriously maim or kill that child.


That is some of the most ignorant nonsense I have read in a while.

 

[Papa Bear]

Originally Posted By: donnyj08
I Don't trust anyone's dog.


THIS !!

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

The denial and refusal to admit that genetics play a significant factor in the temperament and behavior of the pit bull breed is
not surprising, as many of the owners are delusional to the point of endangering themselves and innocent bystanders around them.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: barkingspider
There are more dog bites from Labrador retrievers than pit bulls. Just a FYI. Its not the dog breed, its the owner. Its not the tool, its the fool. Its not the arrow, its the indian. Its not the gun, its the idiot behind it.


It's not about how many, it's about the severity of the injury. A dog is not a tool or a gun or an arrow. None of those are capable of injuring or killing of their own accord. Nobody has 100% control over any dog. To think so is dangerously foolish. No list of dangerous dogs has Labs on it, every list has pits as #1. Google "dog bites by breed" Dachshunds probably bite more people than pit bulls, so what?

This:

A review of 82 dog bite cases at a level 1 trauma center where the breed of dog was identified concludes that attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Bini, John K. MD; Cohn, Stephen M. MD; Acosta, Shirley M. RN, BSN; McFarland, Marilyn J. RN, MS; Muir, Mark T. MD; Michalek, Joel E. PhD; for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group, Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs, Annals of Surgery (April 2011, Vol. 253, Issue 4, pp. 791–797).

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening. According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.


Nice use of color.

How reliable is this data? One report I have seen from a "pit bull" attack was actually a Dogue de Bordeaux, another was a Labrador retriever, and another was an American Bully. Sensationalism and general ignorance is running wild when it comes to dog attacks.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
Originally Posted By: donnyj08
I Don't trust anyone's dog.


THIS !!


Exactly. Also I have been attacked by more chihuahuas, yorkies and dachshunds. Then any other breed.

 

[Srt20]

Well I will chime in.

I agree with both sides. Yes it's the breed, yes it's the owners.
Pit bulls can be trained to be trusted. Absolutely! The problem is, so many dog owners THINK they know what they are doing and have a "trained" dog. And obviously they don't on both. They think the dog should be their equal. A trained dog is NOT an equal to a human, he is at the bottom of the totem pole. Ok, maybe higher than the cat or the pet bird.

It's obviously well known that pits Bulls are quick to attack. And having a "WELL TRAINED" pit bull usually requires more training the most breeds.

Training starts from the day they are born, until the day they die. Period. To many people think friggin dogs should have equal rights as humans.

I agree 100% with the posters that don't trust any dog. How is someone supposed to know how well trained a dog is?
Though I trust my dog 100% with anybody including my children. Though I didn't always. Trust takes time AND training.

My dog is a family pet, and sometimes he gets to go hunting. He is not trained to be tough, or a watch dog. He also knows his role in the pecking order. He is a happy dog in his role.

 

[AZjeff]

I'd like to ask pit bull owners and defenders, with all respect, what is it about owning a dog that has the capacity to seriously injure or kill a person? With the history and statistics of this breed, (and to a lesser degree Rotties), what is the attraction? Protection? Image? Superiority? What's wrong with Beagles or Labs or Corgis or Greyhounds or Blue Ticks? Looking for honest answers. Why a pit bull?

The analogy of a pit bull and a gun is ludicrous. If the OP's neighbor with the chain saw had an AR-15 lying on the ground beside him or on a sling on his back he could have handed that chainsaw to the lady 1000 times and that rifle would not have pointed itself at her and gone off. So weak. If that's you argument you ain't got much.