Comments

1
And the backlash from the pit bull apologists comes in: ...3...2...1...
2
DogsBite.org: Some dogs don't let go
About us ::
DogsBite.org is a public education website about dangerous dogs -- specifically pit bull type dogs.


They sound objective.

I wonder why the Centers for Disease Control and the American Veterinary Medical Association see things so much differently than our good friends at DogsBite.org.
3
I would love to see these numbers as a percentage of the total dogs of a specific breed there are in the US (e.g., 14 pit bull attacks in 2009, divided by the total number of pitbulls estimated in the US). Then you'd get a better sense of whether certain breeds are more prone to attack or whether there are just plan more of them around.

Somehow I suspect that the conclusion that pit bulls are more likely to attack fatally would not be very different (since I highly doubt pit bulls make up 56% of the dog US population), but would be interesting nonetheless. Particularly for Rottweilers, which may end up looking more dangerous than pits, since they are probably less prevalent.
4
...but but but they've got such sweet temperaments!

(when they're not eating some old lady's windpipe or chewing a neighborhood kid's face off, presumably)
5
I support a breed ban on ANY dog breed that causes even one fatality by biting. Within any municipal borders, if not everywhere.

FUCK YOU PEOPLE AND YOUR GODDAMN DOGS, in other words.
6
I'm guessing the discrepancy in the groups' data revolves around defining "pit bull."
7
Whoa, is this gonna be a record page-hits day on the Slog? We got tranny wars, Aussie racists, and now, the coup de grace: PIT BULLS!

w00t!!
8
But how many of those fatalities were caused by dogs owned by irresponsible pit bull owners? You know, the type of pit bull owners that other pit bull owners point at every time somebody complains about the vicious alligator they're taking for walks around the neighborhood at the end of a dental-floss leash?
9
lets fear everything, and make a law that keeps us safer! 14 people in 2009! I can't think of anything that killed more than 14 people a year that we shouldn't ban.
10
evidence won't convince the pit bull saps.
they will still go on and on how other dogs bite too. They will still dispute anything against pit bulls. They are blind to the reality these dogs kill.
I've got weapons at the ready for the one in my neighborhood. You won't catch me out doing yardwork this summer without em'.
11
@9,

Pajamas made from extremely flammable fabric killed a negligible number of children. The government still took steps to regulate children's pajamas.
12
@ 2 (not that you'll see this) - you keep looking at your decades-old data and we'll stick to more current figures.
13
I heard Pit Bulls have been active in the Critical Mass rides too.

Ban both!!
14
Mandatory neutering for prospective pit bull owners ought to solve the problem. Maybe neuter the dogs, too.
15
But MY pit bull would never blahblahblahblahblah
17
I like the balanced and fair reporting of dogbite.org. Reminiscent of the fair and balanced reporting on Fox news.
18
As @2 already stated, these website is not exactly an objective source... but on top of that and what 3 said about population, I'd also like to add that the term "Pit Bull" is an umbrella term used for several breeds of dog. (which could explain the large discrepancy in figures between sources.)

So I guess what I'd like to know is more in-depth data showing which exact breeds do the most damage.
19
I have two lovely pit/rottweiler mix dogs. They are so sweet. They sleep in the same room as my children.

I am sick of people saying they are bad dogs.
20
"American Pit Bull Terriers" is a narrowly defined AKC breed. Amstaffs, British Staffs, and any junkyard Pit mixes are disqualified.

A more relevant statistic might be the socio-economic status and educational achievment of the male owners of killer dogs.

Yeah, I said MALE owners.
21
How many cats cause deaths? Are we sure that all of these 'purported' attacks by pit bulls weren't actually cats dressed up to look like pit bulls? I can't tell you how many times I have been attacked by cats under the guise of them 'playing'.

Never mind my injuries have never been fatal!
22
Yet...
23
Ignorance is bliss.
24
19: you might want to check and make sure your children still have THEIR FACES.
25
Moral panic more.
26
You can get statistics to "say" just about anything you want them to. Note here: "attacks" and "fatal attacks" are very different things. A certain breed can have the majority of "fatal attacks" yet not be in the top ten of breeds most likely to "attack."
The definition of Pit Bull is also up for interpretation.
Bottom line, bad owner = dangerous dog. Aggressive looking dogs attract irrisponsible owners.
27
My pitbull says suck it. The other dogs mustve had it coming as far as I can see
28
My dogs are sweet as can be. They've had trouble with other dogs, but that's natural. My children refuse to go to sleep until Will and Gracie (cute huh) are in their doggie beds next to them.

Pitbulls are harmless!
29
Wow, surprising that dogs bred specifically for killing top the charts for killing.
30
That is demonstrably NOT a graph.
31
We're number one!
32
I'm having trouble getting all riled up about 14 deaths from pit bull attacks in a year. Thinking we might have bigger problems.
33
Any dog is capable of aggression when not trained and cared for properly. Pits are no exception, and do have a predisposition towards aggression because of their breeding. It is the owner's responsibility to be aware of this and to train their dog. Problems happen when irresponsible people own hard to manage dogs such as pits. Putting breed bans in place would do absolutely no good because irresponsible people would find another breed to take the place of the pit.

#3 has it right about the "graph". The number of deaths means nothing without the total number of pits.
34
@30 - However, it just miiiiight be something sortof like a table.
35
@26: Nice. The "facts can be used to say anything" argument. Bravo.

@19: Maybe you don't like your kids much? Who knows. Just so long as you agree to keep those "sweet" animals that were bred to fight bulls for sport locked behind a very high fence at all times, we don't have a problem.
37
I agree that these data would be much more revealing if we knew the total percentage of dogs that were pitbulls.

BUT - the numbers are pretty mindblowing (if they are accurate). In 2008, pitbulls were responsible for 65% of deaths, and in 2009, 44% of deaths. The grand total is 56% of deaths.
How many folks do you know that own pitbulls? Surely not ~50%!!!
38
Obviously we need to do what one friend of mine, a vegan, has done, and turn all the pitbulls into sweet sweet vegan dogs.

Of course, then we'll have to worry about the cries from all the carrots, beets, and other vegetables, fruits, and breadstuffs as the vegan pitbulls savagely rip them to shreds with their vegan jaws ...
39
@33, the difference is, when a dachshund goes off the rails and attacks someone, ankles get harassed. When a pit does the same thing, people die. Pits are in fact naturally agressive, by way of breeding, but more importantly, they are bred to inflict damage. That's their whole purpose in life. And they're good at it.

It's like the difference between walking around with a cap gun with a hair trigger on the end of a string, and a real gun with a hair trigger. Both are likely to go off as they bounce along the pavement, but the cap gun isn't going to hurt anybody. And people who drag guns with hair triggers along the pavement should be put down.
40
Fnarf: Or, at the very least, they should be required to point their guns at Will.
41
@39

If all the pits are put down then the people who have bred them to be aggressive will simply breed that trait into another type of dog. Which would bring us back to where we are now, except everyone would be complaining about dog breed x instead of pit bulls.

Your analogy is interesting, and I agree that people who are stupid enough to carry a gun around like that should be punished. However, just because a dog is a pit bull doesn't guarantee that animal will be aggressive. With guns and dogs the owner makes all the difference.
42

In study of dog bites, did Dogsbite factor Erica C. Barnett into its equation?
43
Oh, Fnarf.

Maybe you can explain to me why the CDC and AVMA don't see it that way. Are they all in the pocket of Big Pit Bulls?

See my only issue is that I see science and expertise on one side, and crusading journalists on the other. It bothers me when I see such an unfair fight, and I want to understand why no serious experts, with real jobs in the appropriate field, want breed bans.
44
@28,

Did you guys get Will & Grace and George & Gracie confused?
45
Thank you, Elenchos @43. This is nothing but a boss-ass-kissing, comment-baiting post. Silly that we go around and around on this. If you haven't yet, read Malcolm Gladwell's Troublemakers: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02…

Fnarf, I'm taking your "Fuck You" personally. My bully breed dog has been instructed to take your balls off should we run into you on the sidewalk.
46
When a pit bull is ripping your, or your grandma's, or your child's face off, is the relevancy of the statistical proportion of number of pit bulls to number of pit bull fatalities REALLY going to be the first thing that pops into you people's heads?
48
Equivocation is fun! Why bother defining "pit bull" when you can play with squishy definitions to grab some pageviews?
49
#43: Um, the Centers for Disease Control didn't recommend banning pit bulls because there wasn't full evidence to support 1) verifiable proof on the type of dogs that commit bites (nobody is taking DNA tests), and 2) there is no census of dogs so they don't know scientifically that pit bulls don't actually make up 75% of all dogs in the country. Using common sense, we don't need a billion dollar study to prove #1 and #2.

The CDC did, however, find that pit bulls caused 32% of fatal dog attacks between 1980-2000, along with rottweilers at 18%, and German shepards at 11%. That's pretty damning coming from the CDC.

#45: Good point. Your dog must be so nice if it will maim Fnarf on instinct, and its owner must be awesome if they threaten to kill or seriously injure someone on a blog.
50
Also, why aren't the anti-breed ban folks pulling together to end King County's current breed ban on dogs?

King County and MOST US states/localities have a ban on the books against all wolf-dog hybrids, which were very popular in the 80's. It has proven very effective.

If breed bans are useless and ineffective, why not fight to legalize wolf hybrids, who have never been proven to be as dangerous as pit bulls?

The Marine Corps was one of the stragglers, and they just banned wolf hybrids (along with pit bulls and rottweilers) on their bases in October 2009, after a child was mauled to death. The culprit? A pit bull.
51
@45, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry that wherever I go in this city, I'm surrounded by people who feel obligated to take their huge, untrained, slobbery, crotch-sniffing, paw-on-chest-placing, scary-growl-emitting, snapping-at-every-other-dogging, leash-straining giant critter with them, wrapping its leash around people's ankles, snarling and snuffling at everyone. I don't want them around me.

I'm not just talking about pit bulls; I'm talking about god damned dog owners everywhere, whose dogs are threatening and unsanitary. And yes, they go after people -- not just pitbulls, and not just gangsta thugs. I know charming, mild-mannered people who think their little precious can do no wrong -- EVEN AFTER IT BITES KIDS. I've known dozens of bitey dogs. No, not all were pitbulls. But pitbulls are the worst.

But mostly I'm just frustrated by the self-centeredness of people who think their lack of interest in training their animal is adorable. You see them EVERYWHERE. It isn't civilized; it's boorish and rude and dangerous.

If that means that your perfectly lovely pitbull is unfairly slandered, that's too bad. But if it was up to me, it would be illegal to own a dog that weighs more than ten pounds.
52
Ugh, Fnarf, the little dogs are the fucking worst. Learn something about which dogs suck before you post. Ban the ones under 10 pounds and over 40.
53
@41, great. We'll start with the pits, then we'll ban the next one, and the next one after that. Aggressive, potentially dangerous dogs have no place in a city. I'll stand up and say "fuck you people and your dogs", and take the heat for it; but believe me, you have no idea how many older people, for instance, are TERRIFIED of your animals, chained up outside the grocery stores and coffee houses while you sip your latte. I don't care how charming you think they are. People have the right to walk down the street without thinking "oh, that one doesn't look too bad, he's just sitting there, I'll just -- oh!". Bark, growl, snap, snarl. Happens all day, every day, with the nicest dogs, the nicest people.
54
Oh I have a point, sunshine. My point is this: when a product is clearly defective to the point that it kills people through no fault of their own we take that product out of circulation until the defect can be repaired. If the defect can't be repaired we take it out of circulation permanently.

If we were talking about Toyota Priuses (Priusi?) or jars of peanut butter killing people to the extent pit bulls do we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So, why should a breed of dog with a demonstrable tendency toward inflicting fatalities on human beings be any different?

People keep saying, "oh, but they're such GOOD doggies!" which simply proves my point. Peanut butter and Japanese hybrids are also "good" for the most part, but when they start killing people we don't wait until they reach a certain arbitrary threshold of fatalities before we recognize there's a problem.

Continuing to defend fatally aggressive dog breeds is akin to watching the Prius with the stuck accelerator speed down the freeway to a fiery crash and then insisting the driver was the problem and not the vehicle itself.
55
I have to say those numbers seem low given how often I see pit bull attack stories within these hallowed walls.
56
I'd be interested to see how many non-fatal attacks are from pit bulls.

I'd also be interested to see an age breakdown of the victims. A lot of dog attack fatalities tend to be very young children, because even many otherwise responsible dog owners don't understand that no dog--even a miniature Chihuahua, even a sweet-tempered Golden Retriever--should be left unsupervised with a child.

I grew up in an area with a bit of a dog fighting problem. I took care of a stray pit bull "victim" dog--one that the trainers use to teach the fighting dogs to tear the crap out of other dogs--until she disappeared. (She was cowed and scar-speckled.)

I left our garage open for her everyday, and kept her fed and supplied with fresh water. We couldn't adopt her and bring her into the house, because we already had a dog--who growled and snapped at her the first time he saw her, while she passively stood there--and no shelters would take her when I called once the word "pit bull" escaped my lips. I'm sure that animal control snatched her one day while I was at school.

I stand by my belief that the bulk of pit bull aggression is the training and breeders selecting for nastier temperaments.
57
@ 45; THANKYOU for the link to the newyorker article- that was a wonderfully objective and intelligent piece. for those of you who aren't going to read it, the main point was this- the correlation between fatal dog attacks and breed is not stable- it depends on which breeds are popular among people who want aggressive dogs. what IS stable is the type of owner. The comparison of these dogs to guns is actually a very good one- because proponents of gun ownership often point out that if you ban guns the only people with guns will be criminals. Responsible law abiding citizens are not the one's with excessively dangerous dogs. dogs that attack are nearly always dogs that have been abused and/or encouraged to be aggressive and have not be properly socialized. if you ban one breed, the MALES of low SES and low education will just get a different kind of dog, or IGNORE the breed ban! the problem doesn't go away! it might be useful to compare dog bite fatalities in cities with breed bans versus cities without. are their fewer? the article points out that in many cases, the dogs had a known history of aggression- and yet the city had not followed through and neutered the dogs, or made sure the owner was muzzliing them, or confiscated the dogs or had them put down. so they attacked AGAIN! thats a bit like saying if an adolescent black gang member shoots someone, we're not going to jail that particular person, but we're going to make a law against black people.
and for the record, i agree with FNARF on one thing- i HATE it when the non-thug nice relatively normal people are simply too empty headed to train and control their dog because they just think its SO cute. those people are usually the small dog owners, and while their dogs rarely cause serious injury they CERTAINLY cause serious annoyance!
58
@ 57 - I'm not going to read your post because you didn't break it down into paragraphs.
59
In the United States over 20,000 men are killed each year by HIV/AIDS where "male-to-male sexual contact" is the transmission route. "Male-to-male sexual contact" is also the largest percentage of all HIV transmission routes. So by your rationalle, "Male-to-male sexual contact" should be banned 1000 times more than pitbulls.
61
Fnarf, the document A community approach to dog bite prevention, from the CDC and AVMA, has detailed, comprehensive advice for communities to address the kinds of problems you describe. They know what they're talking about.
62
When talking about pit bulls, the correct phrasing is never "My pet never hurt anyone." It's "My pet hasn't hurt anyone yet." Any dog can bite, but a poodle will do a lot less damage than a pit. Most fatal dog attacks were the first time the dog had ever attacked anyone. They don't need to be vicious by temperament- they just need to get vicious once. Luckily, pit bulls can do it both ways.
64
@ 63, except for that pesky little fact that most large dogs don't inflict serious damage on a human. Details, details...
65
Presumably by now everyone has seen this video of a pit bull ripping the bumper off of a Chattanooga, TN police cruiser...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAc9k7vJ9…

Now imagine if this was some kid riding by on his bicycle, or an old lady walking home with her groceries.
68
Hey, Amy Kate, that New Yorker article is good stuff. Thanks!
69
I appreciate Fnarf for turning our attention to the source of this topic - people; without whom dog 'breeds', including the pitbull, would not exist.
70
OK so Pit bulls are SUPPOSEDLY responsible for most of all fatal dog bites in America.
Which dog breed averages the most dog bites (fatal and non-fatal) nationwide?

This data reveals nothing about the aggressiveness of the breed. There are over 300 million legal citizens in the US, not counting the illegals who live "hidden" among us. How is the incidence of a breed of dog averaging about 17 alleged attacks resulting in fatalities a significant figure? Women are more likely to die in childbirth than the entire population of people who are likely to die from a fatal Pit Bull attack.
71
I'm tired of the media's biased reports on pit bulls!!!!!!!!! I have a pit bull, pickapoo, and 2 chihuahuas. And my chihuahuas are alot meaner than my pit is.. she my pit treats the other dogs like her pups. SO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANT PIT BULLS BANED YOU NEED GET A LIFE AND LEAVE THE PIT BULLS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
72
Let's ban Chihahuas, Maltese, Shih Tzus, Chow Chows, Jack Russells, Scotties, Westies, etc. ANY DOG CAN KILL. It's like saying, Let's ban guns because guns kill people. No, Guns don't kill people. Guns in the hands of mentally unstable and angry people kill people. Let's be reasonable and intelligent about this...

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.