What techniques are those then?

Because so far the activists appear to the the ones who are aggressively jumping into a threat where a a actual article about a child being killed by a dog was posted, and having a hissy fit about it.

It's almost as if they are trying to suppress the truth that a child has been killed because it might undermine whatever their view of the subject is.  

Personally I'm in favour of embracing the truth, considering it rationally and debating it with like minded people. That is the only way you can put the hysteria to bed.  

Ironically, as someone who is pretty much sat on the fence as pit bulls go, it appears that the most hysterical responses are those that come from the people who felt the need to jump in and start berating the OP for daring to post an uncomfortable and tragic truth about yet another child being killed by a dog.

Another opportunity for rational debate goes sailing off on a gust of indignation.

TF are you droning on about?

Agree to some extent with the bit in red.

The second part, not so much..... perception is basis upon which further exploration of the facts needs to be based.  Perception is just the start point.  It can be accurate as often as it is misguided.

As far as I am aware, the only facts pointed out in this thread before the backlash started were that a 5 year old child had been killed by a dog and that dog had been identified as a pit bull type.  Beyond that things went silly very quickly and little progress has been made.

If we can agree that the child is dead and that the dog did it, then I guess that we have a starting point to work from.

That isn't a claim that other dogs never attack.  RIF.  Let me break it down for you.  I have not personally seen any news stories involving other breeds killing people, therefore, there are no threads started by me.  It was a joke.  Hence the wink that you didn't quote.  Obviously, other dogs kill people.  Why no comment on my opinion about pits?  No fun?

It's a shame you weren't a member back then....

....it would have been a great thread.

I don't really care what you think about pitbulls.   Do you believe your opinion of a dog breed is really that important?

You certainly seem to think so.  You tried to tell me what my opinion was for at least four pages.

You are projecting.  

I've done no such thing.

It could have been very interesting.

There's been a few since that might still be good examples.  Two fatalities last year IIRC.

I'm a good dog




ETA:
Unadoptable Breeds

Dog temperament

Pit Bull history

Cop rescues pit bull puppy

Pit attacks news anchor

8 lies about Pit Bulls

No. This dog was well tended and trained. It is a proud community just like yours and mine.

Okay, whatever.  I thought maybe you might finally want to have a intelligent discussion about pit bulls, but carry with what you're doing.

Fucking ipads

Orly, did they conduct genetic testing?

Do you want to talk about pitbulls?

I want to see everyone's statistics about APBTs.

I assume there is a new analysis that actually employs the scientific method?

What else is there to debate about? A poor child was killed in a horrible way and my heart goes out to their family.

Destroy every pit on the planet with spiked baseball bats.  I fucking hate them and I don't care if you compare my view to some other liberal agenda. It's my god damn opinion and I'm free to have it.  Kill'em all.

I have no idea what's going on in here.....

but.....

I've seen super cool pit bull dogs
I've seen super cool regular dogs
I've seen psycho over the edge pit bull dogs
I've seen psycho over the edge regular dogs

had to shoot a pit bull recently that went berzerk and attacked some peoples and was coming to attack me as well.  

felt bad about it, but I'm an equal opportunity dog shooter and I only shoot dogs that need shooting.

Fair do's.

Have you ever had to shoot any other dogs?

Through 2012, or thereabouts ...

Ranked by Incidents of Serious Bodily Harm:
Pit bull 2792
Rottweiler 514
Pit bull-mix 191
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 105
German shepherd 102
Wolf hybrid 85
Husky 79
Akita 68
Boxer 62
Chow 58
German shepherd-mix 43
Doberman 18

Ranked by Deaths:
Pit bull 263
Rottweiler 81
Husky 25
Wolf hybrid 19
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 15
German shepherd 15
Pit bull-mix 12
Akita 8
Boxer 7
Chow 7
German shepherd-mix 7
Doberman 7
...
Golden Retriever 2

Ranked by Bodily Harm divided by Dog Category as % of Total Dog Population:  
(these numbers are somewhat meaningless, but useful in this context and for ranking:
the numbers are relative, meaning that severe Pit Bull attacks are roughly 10x more
prevalent than severe attacks by Boxers, when normalized for population)
Wolf hybrid DIV/0!
Pit bull-mix DIV/0!
German shepherd-mix DIV/0!
Chow 644444
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 525000
Husky 112857
Pit bull 46533
Rottweiler 25700
Akita 6800
German shepherd 4857
Boxer 4429
Doberman 1286

Ranked by Death divided by Dog Category as % of Total Dog Population:  
(these numbers are somewhat meaningless, but useful in this context and for ranking)
Wolf hybrid DIV/0!
Pit bull-mix DIV/0!
German shepherd-mix DIV/0!
Chow 77778
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 75000
Husky 35714
Pit bull 4383
Rottweiler 4050
Akita 800
German shepherd 714
Boxer 500
Doberman 500
...
Golden Retriever 133

Ranked by Death to Mauling Ratio:
Husky 1.04
Doberman 0.70
Wolf hybrid 0.39
Rottweiler 0.28
German shepherd-mix 0.25
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 0.25
Boxer 0.24
German shepherd 0.24
Chow 0.18
Akita 0.16
Pit bull 0.16
Pit bull-mix 0.12

Ranked by Adult/Child Attack Ratio:  
Wolf hybrid 0.07
Husky 0.10
German shepherd-mix 0.43
Chow 0.46
Rottweiler 0.47
German shepherd 0.48
Akita 0.49
Pit bull-mix 0.60
Bullmastiff (Presa canario) 0.93
Pit bull 0.94
Doberman 1.00
Boxer 1.11

Nah, I'm getting tired.

Besides, L_JE just showed up with his calculator.

I have no idea if I really understand your point.

If you're suggesting that there's an epidemic of dogs attacking and/or killing people, there most certainly is not. If you're suggesting that there's an epidemic of "pit bull type" dogs attacking and/or killing people, there most certainly is not. The number of breeds considered "pit bull types" is insane and probably around two dozen if not more. That's a substantial number of dogs, and the total number of dog/human interactions is probably on the order of billions a day. It is of course regrettable when a human is killed or maimed by a dog, as that is almost universally avoidable. I contend (as do veterinary experts and dog experts) that the breed has next to nothing to do with that, however, and I show up in these threads because I see people who only care because of the headline containing "pit bull type."

My problem is that studies have shown that visual identification of dogs - even by trained dog experts who are able to observe and interact with the dog - is wrong more than three quarters of the time. Shelters have been known to misidentify dogs as pitbulls when they aren't, and they also identify actual APBTs and ASTs as something else. This is why I don't trust the media in any sense when it comes to these dogs - visual identification has been proven inaccurate.

Read the other link I posted above. The media has a narrative that they have latched onto and they can and will sensationalize a story to fit that narrative. Breed unknown? "Pit bull type." Witnesses say "pit bull type." What does the local crackhead know about dogs? Probably nothing. It's not a story unless it's a "pit bull type." That said, I am probably sure that most of these dogs are *intended* to be pits primarily because they're kept in poor conditions by shitbag owners. These are people who breed without regard and they can't even raise their own children. How the fuck would anybody expect them to raise a dog?

The way I see it, there are two types of dog attacks.

1) The most common, which is shitbag inner-city "urban" owners leaving unsocialized, abused, poorly (or not at all) trained dogs alone with one of their 50 children (or maybe not alone because their great-grandma was passed out in a chair). They probably got this dog from a back-alley breeder or picked up a stray, usually an unaltered male, because they wanted a status symbol of some sorts. These dogs are almost certainly mixed breeds - boxers, curs, maybe some actual pit - but they are identified as pits by the illiterate retards who own them. Ghetto trash won't have golden retrievers, but if they did this same shit would happen.

2) The least common, which is generally responsible owners who think they can handle known problem dogs, dogs who overreact to certain stimuli, and so on. These will be all sorts of breeds, APBTs and ASTs included. These are rare and the actual breed distribution will not point to anything in particular.

(Edited to remove Merritt Clifton's bullshit...)

Those numbers are from a known charlatan who is not taken seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/merritt-clifton-pit-bulls_b_5866176.html

Another vicious attack

Ban them!

That doesn't look like any study I have ever read. Got a source? How,about the procedure/method?

Responses in red. Thanks for taking the time to type out a reasonable response.

I'm not suggesting that I know the solution to this.  There is clearly a debate to be had once we got over the initial defensiveness and accusations.

However, we really do need to decide whether there is problem or not first.  If people think that the number of attacks is unacceptable, whether they result in death or not, then clearly it needs to be looked into further.

To do this we need to credibly and sensibly identify the characteristics and key factors which contribute to the increased risk of serious injury or death.  Those factors will naturally mean considering the dogs physical and temperamental characteristics, the influence of appropriate training and control and the commonalities in the scenarios where serious dog attacks take place.

Getting tied up in the semantics of nomenclature and debate over purist genetics does nothing but stall the best chance you have of getting to grips with the real problem and approaching the risk factors without the bias of breed loyalty.  

The longer this drags on without sensible debate, the greater the momentum of the opposing narratives an the greater the likelihood that one-jerk and draconian measures will be taken which fail to address the root causes.

I'll leave you with that.......it's late here and way past bedtime.  Have a good evening.

The numbers can be approached from several different directions, independent of Clifton's publication - and there is a surprising degree of agreement in the data.

You may not agree with Clifton's subjective opinions, but the numbers do check out.

I guess I could also point out that insurance companies are in good agreement with the above figures, but I'm sure some will call them banksters and whatever, and dismiss that as well.

Very covincing data here.  Oh, nm.

I love surprises. Let's see the source material.

Are pitbulls popular dogs in the United States?   Are there many of them?

Popular in certain circles, but way down the list of most popular.  I tried to find numbers, but there aren't any that are reliable.  There are several breeds that are considered "Pit Bulls", and the numbers are based on registered dogs.  I would guess that a relatively low percentage of them are registered.

Actually in the top three in most states (behind labs and chihuahuas).
FAR more pitbulls than Dobermans, Rottweilers, or GSD.

You can try and start with mine if you're feeling tough?

Wow, really?  I would have guessed the second part, but the numbers I managed to find had them in the bottom half of the top 100.  I guess it's like I said... those numbers are based on registered dogs.

And when he's done with yours he's welcome to give mine a whirl.

The reality is he's never gonna do a fucking thing except yap yap yap on the Internet.

There were some CDC and JAVMA papers with overlapping intervals and they concurred with Clifton's numbers.    Alternatively, one could also tally up the info linked in Wikipedia, and probably find it in good agreement with the numbers posted above, at least with respect to fatalities.

What did the breeders of these other "tough guy" breeds do to address the issues?

A dog is an animal that can't exactly be reasoned with, so there is no solution other than to cull the animal. Responsible breeders do this from the start, only using the healthiest and best-tempered individuals to produce litters. There are no responsible breeders where these attacks occur. There is no attempt made to remove bad-tempered dogs from the genetic line - in fact, if anything it's encouraged. There is no attempt to socialize or to monitor interaction between dogs and humans. The entire environment is basically a constant source of stimuli to dogs - and not settling ones.

When it was Dobermans in the 1970's and 1980's, there was really nothing that could be done until another dog took its place. Now it's the "pit bull type." The problem is fortunately relatively inconsequential as in those same environments people are killing each other by the truckload so the occasional dog mauling doesn't register very high on the relative importance scale.

I disagree with the bit in red..... there is plenty that can be done.  The issue around Dobermans back in the 70's and 80's was handled badly, and in reality that issue pales by comparison to some of the statistics surrounding "pit bull types".

While those are all fairly credible claims you make, you need to be able to evidence them, rather than rely on anecdotal assessments.

If you can prove that there are certain types of breeders and certain sectors of society which influence the likelihood of these dogs attacking people then you are part way to drilling down to the root causes of the problem and devising measures which can be implemented if necessary to reduce risk.  This helps to demonstrate that the risk from well trained and controlled dogs from a good breeding stock present a lower risk - if that indeed is the case.

You also need to be careful not to fall into the trap of making assumptions about ghetto dogs etc.  There will be information around the circumstances of each attack and the conditions leading up to it that will need to be considered, and it may be that the dog was well trained and cared for, and might have had come from good stock.

Your claims also need to be considered in context with other elements of the dog attack statistics so that the limitations of those claims can be identified and other avenues explored help understand why dogs from other backgrounds attack.

By doing this you can start to reclaim the name from the media narrative you refer to.  However, take an entrenched position based on denial without the evidence to back that denial up, and you will continue to lose ground.

Hey! A new use for this.

My neighborhood is self-contained, wealthy, predominantly white, and filled with professionals, high ranking military and retired executives/Flag Officers ($750k-$2M houses).

People walk their dogs all day long.  There are several little white yappy dogs.  There are three Black Labs.  There is one Golden Retriever.   Five shaggy mutts.  Two GSD's.  One magnificent Rhodesian Ridgeback.  And Four Pitbulls (one of which the owners INSISTS is a lab/boxer mix lol).

Pitbulls are the predominant breed in this neighborhood.  No hoodrats, not flat bills, and only one inky.   If you go to our local shelter, about 80% of the dogs are pits or pit mixes.   Again, not a trashy area.


How is this possible?

Well, I don't know how to "prove" what you want me to prove. It is possible that there might be AKC registered APBTs or ASTs in the inner city, but I would say it's highly unlikely based simply on the fact that there is no money to be made there. Breeders can't sell their dogs to people that don't have the money to buy them.

Here is a good source (in addition to what I already posted, mind you) of information on why dogs bite:

http://dogbitelaw.com/why-dogs-bite-people/chaining-being-male-other-causes-of-dog-bites

Neutering is the single biggest thing people can do to reduce the incidence of aggression. Females are not involved in the majority of dog bites of any breed, even though they might be more territorial with other dogs.

Given that the vast majority of dog bite victims are children, it stands to reason that is something inherent to children (or the dog/child interaction). Having been around dogs my entire life, I can tell you there are two very important steps to take.

1) Supervise ALL interactions with dogs and children, ensuring that both the dog and the child understand what is and is not appropriate behavior. I have seen children tug on dogs' ears, tails, skin, you name it. No dog likes that. It is possible to teach a dog to tolerate such treatment, but it is generally much easier to teach the child.

2) Teach the child to "ask" all dogs, especially unfamiliar ones, for permission to pet them. While I know it as common sense, kids don't. Don't make sudden or loud noises, get down on their level, let them smell you and look at you, and then slowly touch them in a way they will not be threatened by. Dogs size you up quickly and you will know whether they accept you or not. If it doesn't, then LEAVE THE DAMN THING ALONE. This is what kids don't get.

I don't care what the breed is, but if you a) spay or neuter the animal, b) socialize the dog with other people and dogs when young, and c) teach your damn children how to interact with a dog, you could reduce the incidence of dog bites - regardless of breed - by 95% or more.

Either they're not all they're cracked up to be as pets, reputation keeps adoption rates low, or both.

It could be that a lot of first time owners get pit bulls as the trendy choice, and find out that they're not cut out to be dog owners.

that's just a misunderstood dog who was trained to be a killer by bloodthirsty cartel members who hate kids. They're totally safe and awesome dogs, you should get some for your babies.

Depends where you are I suppose, but the data for our country shows that the age range most likely to get bitten statistically is 45-49 year olds.  This is closely followed by 5-9 year olds and then and the age ranges either side of 45 and 49 years old.

Basically you are more likely to be bitten if you are your 40's and early 50's.  This was consistently the case across the regions.

I'm referring to data from the UK specifically, but the the principles you have referred to indicate that you have made an general assumption that kids are more likely to be seriously bitten to the extent that the bite would be recorded and need treatment. This apparently is not the case.

stats here

Again you make several statements such as "the vast majority of dog bite victims are children".  Is this borne out by the evidence?

Sad for the little boy, WHO CARES WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF DOG IT WAS !. A LITTLE BOY WAS KILLED! Sad only for the boy and his family! Some of you are heartless fucks!

Thread title says otherwise.

Yes, it is. Depending on the source, it's anywhere from 50% to 75%. This depends further on how the statistics are interpreted. In any case, yes, children are attacked by dogs at a highly disproportionate rate.