The second article contains the links to the studies, you didn’t read for content before bashing it.
Your article has just as much or as little bias as any other non-academic article.
If you don’t believe and can’t admit that pit bulls/types cause the “gravest injuries”(as you put it)then you are in complete and utter denial.
The fact remains that we can post as many articles and academic studies as we want, we can debate this until the cows come home…the point is that pit bull/type rescue/rehabilitation is failing. People continue to be seriously mauled/injured and killed by pit bulls/types and it is unnacceptable.
Dog bite injuries in children: a preliminary survey.[Am Surg. 1999] Dog bite injuries in children: a preliminary survey. [I]Gandhi RR, Liebman MA, Stafford BL, Stafford PW. [/I][I]Am Surg. 1999 Sep; 65(9):863-4. [/I]
Review Severe dog bites in children.[Pediatrics. 1995] Review Severe dog bites in children. [I]Brogan TV, Bratton SL, Dowd MD, Hegenbarth MA. [/I][I]Pediatrics. 1995 Nov; 96(5 Pt 1):947-50. [/I]
It is the level of destruction in numbers that must be addressed, fatalities (could not be saved), what can be done to help those in various injury from attack ending in conclusions of prevention.
The types of dogs causing that destruction are a common theme.
I don’t know how Khall can keep arguing these numbers. Even if a couple dogs in each study were misidentified there’s still an overwhelming number of pitbulls involved. I appreciated that one study even correlated the degree of injury with the breed/type.
I know that Khall is going to keep bringing up the fact that people often identify all “block headed” dogs as pits even when DNA shows they aren’t. But that’s missing the point. The obsession with inexperienced bleeding hearts wanting to rescue or breed pits isn’t limited to DNA typed dogs. Any dog that resembles a pit can easily fall into the wrong hands. That block head and tank like physique regardless of DNA makes that dog a potentially dangerous weapon. More so then your average lab, etc. Perhaps instead of a Pit bull BSL you’d be more comfortable with a block headed dog BSL. Or a broad large dog law. I think the idea of calling it a dangerous dog law is silly when you can’t know if a dog is dangerous until it’s already done something wrong.
I’ve got a 90lb Aussie x Bernese. I would have no issue paying an extra fee because she’s a large dog. I would have no issue muzzling her in public or at dog parks if that made others feel more comfortable. She’s spayed and I have no interest in conformation or breeding with future dogs so that’s a non issue for me.
At this point I think it just important that “animal farm” type lobbies be recognized for what they really are - pit bull promotion, which just reading how they are titled is deceptive.
People can argue until the cows come home about humans being the evil creators of dogs and somehow dogs are now the psychic innocents of everything they were bred for… but something that always seems to be avoided are humans that promote dogs for the wrong environments … somehow they need to view themselves angels and all information must be dismissed to keep that profile intact.
And I don’t think bans an answer unless they are within housing associations, landlords, etc or in reaction to public policy suddenly promoting dogs as allowed over everything… something that has to be watched with language changes to guardians, being on a train with people allowed to bring any dog on board …etc.
If anything from all of this, if going a ban route, I’m beginning to understand why a total ban is better than a BSL. Goes back to when you give an inch and everyone wants a mile with a thousand different arguments.
Just stop the promotion of them in shirts, nanny dogs. You aren’t angels if you promote dogs into the wrong homes and diminish/hide to save. In fact you are becoming the worse link on the chain. Stop doing anything and everything to show them as an exact opposite of what they really were created to do - which was hold boars, bulls and fight other dogs.
skyon are you blaming all of these dog bites on the bullies? Or are you concerned about dog bites in general?
Again GoodTimes only prior behavior is a reliable indicator of future behavior. Not the breed, not their looks. and this: “That block head and tank like physique regardless of DNA makes that dog a potentially dangerous weapon. More so then your average lab,” not true more than one study has shown. Again that bias is showing and your unwillingness to look at all dogs as individuals, not their breed or look.
Yes I’ve read these already, you’ve quoted them several times.
My point is that there are a huge number of people who want to “save all the poor pitbulls”, whether they’re actually pitbulls or not. Many of these people are not equipped to deal with any dog, let alone a strong, high energy dog. Especially those coming from rescues. This is why there is a disproportionate number of pit bulls involved in attacks. How do you propose we stop this? Education sure hasn’t been working.
I’m not saying that a pit is stronger or potentially more lethal then a rottie or a GSD, but they can definitely inflict more damage then a JRT or a yorkie. But an inexperienced dog owner or a less then stellar member of society doesn’t care about that.
I am posting medical studies that are studying dog attack and their recent effects (affects?) on people. This is specifically in response to the statement made that numbers don’t matter.
They do.
I found the original links through research terms " dog attack medical".
If you reading all as just blame on pit bulls - maybe its because you don’t like the study results and conclusions.
Please note that supervision must also include a concept regarding dogs that may attack from off property. It is not just a case of supervising children to prevent injury. Don’t blame a mother putting her children in child seats off property for a dog that breaks out and attacks them. Don’t blame a 60 yr old gardening for a pack of dogs that break out of their house and attack her. Or the landlord who gave permission.
However, that is exactly what is happening with these people being blamed since they must front the cost and injury regardless of the dogs themselves not being supervised. The bites alone are bad, but these aren’t just any bite. They are catastrophic.
why, would an ordinary member of society who thinks that they’ll do the right thing when they decide to get a dog, even for one second consider that the local shelter is headquarters to a criminal organisation?
what on earth kind of society is this country of yours where it’s the novice adoptees fault for not knowing which shelter is legit and which isn’t?
is there ANY legit organisation left in the USA, or should one assume they are ALL criminal headquarters for the local bad guys?
skyon, CORRECT numbers matter and as in the first “conclusion” of the study you cited was shown to not have correct numbers in their so called study. So how can the conclusion be considered correct when it is based on numbers that don’t add up? Also the stories behind those statistics matter, which is what the CDC study I posted looked into. Not just the medical history of the victim but the entire situation around the bite fatality. Again refer to the article debunking your cited “study”.
Thylacine actually yes it is called “buyer beware” http://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer…tor-mean-.html the adopter was not forced to adopt Blue, she chose to. It is on her to do her due diligence in research which apparently she did not. As for this research: google. NEEDS A NAP found the story pretty easily behind that rescue. Usually when there are issues they come out. There is also always check the licensing see if they are legit and if they have any citations and why. There are many avenues that can be gone down to determine if a rescue or even a breeder are up front.
Good Times and others who are in support of bans/BSLs there will always be dog bite fatalities because people are stupid. They own inappropriate dogs, they do not contain them properly, they do not vet them properly, they do not train them, they have “yard” dogs with little to no interactions etc etc. That is why it is a people problem, not a breed or type problem.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE:[/h] Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
Skyon good grief dramatic are we? Cannot handle that your peer review “study” was based on biased and incorrect information?
This so called conclusion" 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. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites. Not valid numbers that they based their information on. Tables from dogsbite yeah sorry find another source. One without a bias, you know like CDC.
With extremists it is round and round we go, conveniently putting words into other’s mouths, mixing up information and grasping every last straw until the end.
I’m very happy with our Ontario pit bull laws, they’re not perfect, they’re still being broken by some…but nobody has been mangled, mauled or killed by a pit bull/type for a long time now.
Almost forgot another that linked from 2014. Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: a case series at a level one pediatric trauma center. Summary says it all. CONCLUSIONS:
Pediatric dog bites span a wide range of ages, frequently require operative intervention, and can cause severe morbidity. Dog familiarity did not confer safety, and in this series, Pit bulls were most frequently responsible. These findings have great relevance for child safety. SUMMARY STATEMENT:
Pediatric dog bites are common and can vary in severity from superficial wounds to life-threatening injuries. Dog familiarity may confer a false sense of safety. A national dog bite prevention and education campaign should be developed with the goal of decreasing the incidence of pediatric dog bites.
And if you go way back in this thread there is a link to the Canadian govt statistics in dog attack fatalities. The #1 breed of dog for dog attack fatalities was the husky. They are not banned. They are not regulated. You didnt want to respond to that statistic then, and you still dont acknowledge the other breeds responisible for fatalilities. The pit bull is not 1 or 2. You are a pit bull hater and thats all you can see.
You couldn’t be more wrong and obviously you’re not reading for content.
I believe I did respond to those stats and I do and always will acknowledge other breeds responsible for fatalities, hence my idea of an across the board BSL for all of the dogs on the aggressive dog list.
The Husky is #1 because of the number of them in our more northern regions and because of how they are kept. Most are not an intergrated family pet, they are mostly kept outside on chains year round and when a kid decides to play with one or one gets loose…they attack.
I would love to see all dogs regulated, big, small, biters/non-biters, potentially aggressive…make sure you read this…ALL DOGS. Then we can move onto cats to try and get their feral situation under control and to prevent stupid humans from treating them like they are a disposable item that can fend for themselves when they’re bored with them or don’t want to take them on their move.
I am sick and absolutely tired of people who cause/have caused/enable the rampant overpopulation, neglect and abuse of our domestic animals…all of our domestic animals.
Just because it’s the maulings and deaths caused by pit bulls/types that are happening on a consistent basis…does not make me a pit bull hater. I feel sorry for a dog that has been genetically bred to cause such devastation that has been bred to overpopulation basically been left to put up with the stupid humans that created it and has now left it to basically fend for itself and face extermination. I would love to see the breed return to a manageable number that is owned only by responsible owners, but the problem is too far out of control and that isn’t going to happen. My empathy for the pit bull does not make me accept the maulings and deaths it’s creating.
skyon it shows how naive you are in citing these studies that do not show where they get the dog breed statistics from. Why? Read the above cite: Breed identification is ALWAYS suspect. It is called critical thinking, not believing everything you read.
I don’t see how I am an extremist when I read with clarity, understand that the studies show dog breed is not the major factor in dog bites or fatalities, have no issue euthanizing any dog regardless of breed that shows unprovoked human aggression (have done so with a bully I rescued) don’t want to own a dog (unlike CT) that shows human aggression that cannot be untrained and has to be walked with a muzzle on always, look at dogs as individuals and do not profile them based on their looks.
BTW I like the pictures of the bullies with flowers on their heads. One of my fosters, Petunia, loved her clothes. She was a bait dog and a bully. She also loved children.
Thats a much better explanation than Ive heard you give before, which is good, I still dont agree with you but at least your post sounds much more rational. Thx for the explanation.
If you do a search back in the beginning of the thread, you will find a link that lists the GSD as the number 1 breed around the world for bites and fatalities.
