My dogs and I were attacked by a pitt bull this morning (we're OK)

[cbv]

[QUOTE=Belmont;8887866]
You also need to look at the availability for pits (and mixes) vs. others. As I stated in my post, we see a number more of aggressive German Sheps than anything else. However, most GSD’s and other more aggressive breeds (not that all GSD’s are bad) are for sale at a higher price. Where as pit’s are so easily available to anyone. I could get on CL or walk into any shelter and twirl around and probably fall on a pit.[/QUOTE]

I apologize for repeatedly going to the book “Pitbull”, but it does present actual data and historical context.

There actually was a time in US history that GSD’so were a large percentage of the pet population in cities and the same kind of rhetoric was used on GSD’so as Pitt Bulls today.

There was also a time bully types were considered good family pets (example dog in “Little Rascals”).

Also interesting. I just lost my cattle dog who was an awesome, gentle dog. However, one of my dog trainers who often works with aggressive dogs said the only two dogs that bit her were cattle dogs. And she does intervention with a lot of GSD’s etc.

And in the book “Pitbull”, on at least two occasions, vets or others professions expressed the opinion that when they heard about or experienced dog bites, cattle dogs were the ones they worried about far more than pits or supposed pit mixes.

The book also supports the hypothesis that the volume of dog bites/mauling by Pitts is related to number in the population vs other breeds.

Finally, genetic evidence suggests dogs id’d in shelters or in the news as pittbull mixes are inaccurate a significant percentage of the time.

[CanadianTrotter]

[QUOTE=cbv;8889350]

There actually was a time in US history that GSD’so were a large percentage of the pet population in cities and the same kind of rhetoric was used on GSD’so as Pitt Bulls today.[/QUOTE]

And doberman’s as well…or whichever other breed was was chosen as the best guard/attack dog, before the pit bull came along.

But how many documented cases of these dogs actually consisted of prolonged and uncontrollable attacks or ended in killing?

[Sswor]

[QUOTE=cbv;8889350]

There actually was a time in US history that GSD’so were a large percentage of the pet population in cities and the same kind of rhetoric was used on GSD’so as Pitt Bulls today. [/QUOTE]

But GSDs were not killing 30 people a year at that time or ever. Pit bull types killed 30 people in 2015. And they are responsible for countless devastating injuries and deaths to companion animals and livestock every year. Not true now or ever about GSDs, or cattle dogs, or any other breed/type. To be fair, this needs to be considered in all of your comparisons. Additionally, the value defined only as “significant percentage” is not very convincing. Especially considering shelters and the media are extremely averse to labeling any dog as a “pit bull”, attacking or otherwise.

If the media mislabeled attacking dogs as pit bulls on a regular basis, there would be documented examples of this happening that could be used as evidence for this line of defense. But there isn’t. It doesn’t happen or at least it happens very rarely, so rare as there seems to be no documented case of it occurring, only the widespread myth of it’s prevalence lives on these internet threads.

So we must protect the breed/type from undocumented prejudice, but not everyone else’s dogs [and kids and older folks], from repeated fatal encounters. It’s not logical.

[cbv]

[QUOTE=CanadianTrotter;8889378]
And doberman’s as well…or whichever other breed was was chosen as the best guard/attack dog, before the pit bull came along.

But how many documented cases of these dogs actually consisted of prolonged and uncontrollable attacks or ended in killing?[/QUOTE]

It is late and I don’t have time to go find the book and look up the particulars but suggest reading the book.

Perhaps the most telling passage in the book was a paragraph comparing the number of injury/deaths due to dog bites/attacks annually in the US compared to car crashes, motorcycle accidents, and Equestrian sports. Equestion sports were the most dangerous by far.

[Sswor]

All of those dangerous endeavors vastly require willing participation. No one ever signs up to be mauled by a dog, or have their pet ripped apart like a prey animal.

[cbv]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8889403]
All of those dangerous endeavors vastly require willing participation. No one ever signs up to be mauled by a dog, or have their pet ripped apart like a prey animal.[/QUOTE]

Point taken. But go back to point about statistics suggesting the relationship between number of incidences of attacks by “Pittbulls” and percentage of pet population, confounded by misidentification of mixed breed dogs, suggests attacks by dogs id’d as Pittbulls is not statistically greater than for other breeds.

For instance, the incident that led to recent ban in Montreal was a dog if’d as a pittbull that was registered as a boxer.

I reiterate, I have no pre-conceived notions prior to reading this book. Never had or desired a pit bull. In fact, whatever the facts have not wanted one just because do not want to deal with insurance and public opinion.

That said, as a research biologist, I found the book balanced and the evidence compelling that the stereotypes and resulting public policies regarding Pittbulls and related breeds/morphotypes to be unsupported by the data.

[Perfect10]

[QUOTE=red mares;8887849]
At this point, yes they should all be put down. End the crap about pits being singled out.

My father has a Chihuahua that is more aggressive than it needs to be. Last time I tried to catch the thing, he tried to bite me. If it were up to me, the dog would go. I worry about it being around my niece and nephew. I worry about someone coming in to help my parents (in the future). The dog gets rough with the cats. This is already the dog’s second chance (I can completely see why he was in a shelter/rescue). There is no reason to pass the buck. Little monster better hope Dad lives a long time; their life spans are linked.

There never used to be all of these issues with dog bites and attacks because dogs that committed those crimes were put down. If there were a shortage of dogs out there, I might feel differently, but there’s not.[/QUOTE]

So the dog that saves your life from an intruder should be euthanized along with the old, blind lab that got surprised that the kid touched it? To me, those dogs don’t deserve to die. The chi that viciously attacks children and the pit that regularly gets out and bites passers-by? Yes. But where do you draw the line in legislature? There are probably a lot more people who agree with me than those who say that any bite incident deserves the needle, regardless of who was at fault.

[rugbygirl]

Yes. Legislation has absolutely no room for judgement, so Perfect 10, that’s exactly how it has to go. No exceptions could ever possibly made, so no legislation should be suggested at all. Oh. Except for that whole judiciary branch. Right. That interprets and applies the law.

Give me a break. Our current north american legislation on animal responsibility is pathetic, and humans pay the price. Not all humans, not even a lot, but those dead people deserve more consideration. Yep, make the human owners responsible. I think part of the punishment for keeping a vicious dog involved in harming a human should be putting it down with your own hands. Accountability, you know.

[Perfect10]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8887948]
The vet techs, kennel workers, shelter volunteers that all insist the pits are fine to deal with are purposely ignoring the fact that these dogs are incredibly DOG aggressive and pose a massive threat to everyone else’s pets in the neighborhood.

Like the OP, most of us would put our lives on the line to protect our pets. The OP was knocked off her feet by the pit bull attacking her beloved dog and she sheltered her dog with her own body to protect him/her. OP is INCREDIBLY lucky. This exact scenario can and does end in death or mutilation of both victim dog and owner.

I just fail to see how those of us, minding our own business, being responsible, ordinary citizen pet owners, taking a stroll in our neighborhoods with our lovely dogs, should ACCEPT this potential threat as just life----so that people who own pit bulls can go about their merry way, unencumbered. That, my friends, is intrinsically unfair and unjust.

I don’t know what to do about it, but those of us who walk our dogs must take this risk on a daily basis and frankly, it sucks. I will probably have a nice, routine, peaceful walk. But tonight, I MIGHT watch my beloved dog get mauled to death by a monster in a horrific attack, right there on the public, neighborhood street. Roll the dice. All so you-general pit owners can enjoy YOUR pets. Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

That’s just a flat out lie. There are many, many, many, many pits out there that are NOT dog aggressive in the least. I used to work in a shelter. MOST of the pit bulls we had were friendly, loveable critters with other dogs. There was ONE pit bull who was very dog selective, but loved playing with her buddy, Pebble, who was also a pit bull. Many of these dogs went on to live with other dogs, kids, cats, etc. and there has not been ONE incident. Animal control does an EXCELLENT job temperament testing these dogs and if they show aggression (food aggression, dog aggression, human aggression, etc.), they are euthanized. There are too many pit bulls out there to allow an aggressive one in the general population. These pits that would rather maul you than look at you are not a result of animal control or rescues that pull the dogs from AC. They are backyard bred, got it as a puppy and never let it off the chain type dogs.

To say it’s a roll the dice type situation that you could be mauled to death by a pit bull tonight is awfully extreme. You could also be hit by a car, but is it likely? You could also have a heart attack and die. You could also win the lottery. Most dog attacks do not result in death. Most dog attacks are dog on dog, not dog on human. Most dog attacks are prevented before they even start. There is the possibility that you live next door to a killer pit bull, Sswor, but I think that’s a bit far fetched.

[skyon]

[QUOTE=cbv;8889427]
Point taken. But go back to point about statistics suggesting the relationship between number of incidences of attacks by “Pittbulls” and percentage of pet population, confounded by misidentification of mixed breed dogs, suggests attacks by dogs id’d as Pittbulls is not statistically greater than for other breeds.

For instance, the incident that led to recent ban in Montreal was a dog if’d as a pittbull that was registered as a boxer.
.[/QUOTE]

OK - I don’t believe in bans.

I can understand why a locality may reach a point of wanting bans. however it feeds both arguments when I look at a picture of the dog that attacked and it sure does not look like a boxer. . People will do that here as well to avoid paying a higher insurance, history… much to the boxers dismay…

Image is here:

Pont being it just makes the issue more divisive, I don’t have an answer. But at this point, I would think there was DNA reported, yet no one is stating it - did the book report the dna info?

And this is also why a comparison of dog attacks to equestrian sports and car crashes is a type of argument that can make me nuts. Not just with dogs!

I can understand a point made about hysteria but at the end of the day, regardless of the comparisons to car crashes, and reports of a boxer registration - was it actually a pitbull that killed this poor woman?

Its that kind of evasiveness that can be as bad as the hysteria.

[Sswor]

I am most concerned about my dogs getting attacked and me getting attacked trying to protect them.

I had to abort a walk 2 hours ago because someone had a pit bull on a chain that was barking and lunging and generally menacing me. It looked like it if got loose, it would kill something, and the only somethings there were me and my dogs. So I turned around. So no, it’s not in the slightest bit far fetched, Perfect 10. This is very relevant to my real life.

If it is there again tomorrow, I will call PD and complain about a pit bull on a chain, lunging and menacing people walking by.

[Perfect10]

@skyon;8889479

OK - I don’t believe in bans.

I can understand why a locality may reach a point of wanting bans. however it feeds both arguments when I look at a picture of the dog that attacked and it sure does not look like a boxer. . People will do that here as well to avoid paying a higher insurance, history… much to the boxers dismay…

Image is here:

That image is not of the attacking dog. That dog’s name is Athena, according to the caption, and she currently resides at the local SPCA.

[sisu27]

Just read the article from the Montreal story and I think the following info is important:

"In the last 30 years in Quebec, she said, five other people have been killed by dogs, and all five cases involved dogs from the husky-breed family.

Yet there were never any laws considered to ban huskies in Quebec, she said. "

This is why I have a problem. I don’t own Pittbulls or want to. I know many that are sweet and harmless. I’ve known some that aren’t. I also believe many people are quick to call an aggressive dog a Pitt when it isn’t but I don’t deny that the breed has behavioral issues and are big and strong enough to do damage and kill. It’s more the former…Dobes and GSD/Malanois have higher bite PSI so in theory could do as much damage. If a Pitt (or any dog really) happened to appear on my property and was a danger to my pets and livestock I would shoot it. I’ve done so with Coyote. I hate it. That one problem Coyote I shoot doesn’t mean I shoot every one I see after that. We have tons of them around and usually they aren’t an issue. I think its a similar analogy to Pitts. The complicating factor with them is the human component. Yet its the only controlling factor. So to me the most logical answer is do something about the people. The fact that Huskies have killed more people in Quebec than any other breed tells me Breed Legislation is not the answer.

So maybe the laws should be so harsh for people that have dangerous dogs that it actually acts as a deterrent. Massive fines, jail time… Why isn’t that the place to start before enacting something that feels an awful lot like genocide?

I will reiterate that I know lots of people that still breed Pitts here in Ontario. Where that activity is illegal. They are the last sort of people that should own animals. The fact that they are banned has only added cache. Its become a nice source of income for thugs. These are the dogs that are likely to kill and maim. So how is the ban working here and why would it be any different anywhere else??

[red_mares]

[QUOTE=Perfect10;8889450]
So the dog that saves your life from an intruder should be euthanized along with the old, blind lab that got surprised that the kid touched it? To me, those dogs don’t deserve to die. The chi that viciously attacks children and the pit that regularly gets out and bites passers-by? Yes. But where do you draw the line in legislature? There are probably a lot more people who agree with me than those who say that any bite incident deserves the needle, regardless of who was at fault.[/QUOTE]

If you can’t tell the difference, then they all go. The old blind lab may not deserve it, but there is so much wiggle room in many of the current laws that dogs kill/attack multiple times before they are killed themselves. I would rather an old dog be put down early than a child gruesomely killed. I am sadly increasingly unique - I value human life more than animal life.

Sorry if it’s heartless to you, but I am tired of seeing people killed and maimed. I am tired of people having their pets attacked. I am tired of the excuses. If you have a better way then by all means tell me, because what is being done is not working.

The idiots that owned the toddler killing Rottweilers wanted them back (mentioned earlier in this thread), why should that even remotely be an option after what happened? The dogs should be killed and the owners held criminally and civilly responsible.

I would be greatly surprised if this was a first time offense for the dogs that attacked the OP.

[skyon]

[QUOTE=Perfect10;8889487]
That image is not of the attacking dog. That dog’s name is Athena, according to the caption, and she currently resides at the local SPCA.[/QUOTE]

Makes it all the more confusing. The owner, himself, noted his dogs name was Lucifer and was a pitbull mix. The humane society found registration of some type that noted the dog as a boxer.

From the article" And the city doesn’t have its own proof yet: It is still waiting for results from DNA tests it ordered to determine the dog’s breed shortly after the attack, city spokesperson Geneviève Dubé said on Friday"

The only reason my bullsh#t meter is going off is because people do claim pits as boxers to avoid insurance, penalties and housing.

BSL will come down to DNA and the argument will keep spinning.

But again, the evasiveness and bias that happens when dogs do maim and kill is mind blowing.

[rugbygirl]

People are so offended by BSL. This is a city with a dog problem. A person died. Put the restrictions on anything over 15 lbs. You want to take your 16lb cat out for a walk. Muzzle. I’m not even kidding. A muzzle shouldn’t kill you or your pet. I also have a REAL hard time objecting to required spay/neuter. Large breed dog breeders don’t belong in the city unless they are prepared to make some pretty big, responsible steps to prevent nuisance. Large dogs, large litters…id be FINE restricting that to rural areas.

And comparing the proposed dog restrictions to genocide is disgusting. The only dogs at risk of death are the ones already in shelters, and only if no one outside the city adopts them. These are not beloved pets, they were already failed by “Pitbull loving” breeders, then owners who abandoned them. Visit a place where there has actually BEEN attempted genocide. Cambodia, maybe. You will never be so callous as to make a comparison to DOGS again. Well, maybe you will. In which case, turn in your human race card.

[cloudyandcallie]

Take pictures.
Take video.
Take audio.
It’s all evidence. I live in a one party consent state meaning I can surreptitiously record conversations between me (the consenting party) and a person who does not know he is being recorded on cell phone.
On the street, a public place, record everything.

People are the irresponsible ones. I don’t blame the dogs. But it’s the dogs who get put down when they bite. Blame their owners not the victims.

I do have that 20 yr old biting cat. Chloe was adopted at the vet’s as an abandoned, unweaned kitten. She liked my mother and my mother’s cat. She has never liked me or any of my cats, older or younger than she. But she is an indoor cat. And not allowed out.

[sisu27]

MANY times on this thread it has been suggested that they all should be euth’d. A few were adamant that my own non-Pitt who is now quite reformed 20 lb hunting terrier should be euth’d. It’s an extreme knee jerk panic “kill 'em all” mentality that is idiotic.

Also genocide would be comparable in this case…it would be if I wanted to eradicate fu(king dandelions…doesn’t diminish human suffering or anything of the sort. FAULTY LOGIC.

Read and re-read the last bit of my post that explains how it has not worked here in Ontario. 1 poster who also lives in Ontario says it has worked. They must not get out much. They live in Ottawa and I live in Toronto so perhaps there is a difference but I doubt it. If you want to be very specific the way it has been executed and enforced in Ontario HAS NOT WORKED.

[beowulf]

[QUOTE=cbv;8889350]

And in the book “Pitbull”, on at least two occasions, vets or others professions expressed the opinion that when they heard about or experienced dog bites, cattle dogs were the ones they worried about far more than pits or supposed pit mixes.

The book also supports the hypothesis that the volume of dog bites/mauling by Pitts is related to number in the population vs other breeds.

Finally, genetic evidence suggests dogs id’d in shelters or in the news as pittbull mixes are inaccurate a significant percentage of the time.[/QUOTE]

And here you have yet ANOTHER source saying:

1. Dogs are easily misidentified/mislabeled in shelters
2. Dogs cannot be reliably identified on phenotype alone (DNA test needed)
3. Volume of bites directly proportionate to huge population, yet statistically equivalent or less to other breeds

The article about the Montreal attack is telling - “well wait a minute it might not be a pitbull and we aren’t releasing the picture soooo”…

More hysteria propagating by the media. Meanwhile, NO deaths by pit-bulls in the last 30 years in Quebec… What exactly is the problem? Do you know how many PB types are in Quebec? Tons… take a look at their shelters… For such an aggressive/volatile/loaded-gun/weaponized breed they sure are sucking at taking down humans in Quebec…

[Incantation]

@rugbygirl;8889986

I also have a REAL hard time objecting to required spay/neuter.

I would have a big problem with this in the case of male giant breed dogs. Even if they will never be bred, recommendations now are to keep them intact to greatly decrease the risk of osteosarcoma and ligament rupture.

Make owners responsible for their pets behaviors.

There is a “rescue” in CT that adopted out a deaf pitbull to friends of mine. They asked many questions about the dog to make sure she would be a good fit with their current pack. Within 3 days the dog began showing signs of resource guarding, with culminated in the dog biting one of the new owners multiple times, when she tried to take a bone from the dog.(yes, they were not prepared to deal with the issue, and had asked about it - were told, we have not seen that).

They took the dog to their vet in the am and he called the rescue. Turns out the dog has a bite history with both dogs and people in three different homes. When they spoke to the rescue later in the day, they were promised the dog would be sent to a trainer until she was rehabbed. They donated extra $$$ towards her training and let the rescue keep the adoption fee, because they really liked the dog.

A couple of weeks later, the dog shows up as available again, with a statement to the effect of, “previsions adopter said dog showed some resource guarding issues, but we have not seen that in foster”.

IMO, the people who run the rescue should be charged with assault and battery WHEN that dog bites again.

Friends are now fostering (for another rescue) the sweetest pit mix in the world. She has trust issues with people, but has wonderful energy and great social skills with dogs. If it weren’t for the fact that rescues refuse to adopt to people with an intact animal, I would adopt her in a heartbeat.