Dogs that bite

Dr Illogical wrote:

Convince me the earth isn't flat. 

Cats would have pushed everything off by now.

Bernie is incredibly sweet and a confirmed whimp. He hides behind mommy if anything really scary is in the woods. One day he barked at the new UPS guy and the new guy was terrified so sensing that for once he could act like a tough guy bernie barked louder and more aggressively than he ever has.  Mommy being a typical   dog person  came to the immediate conclusion that the poor UPS driver was a bad person because sweet Bernie has never done that before........... 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Bernie is incredibly sweet and a confirmed whimp. He hides behind mommy if anything really scary is in the woods. One day he barked at the new UPS guy and the new guy was terrified so sensing that for once he could act like a tough guy bernie barked louder and more aggressively than he ever has.  Mommy being a typical   dog person  came to the immediate conclusion that the poor UPS driver was a bad person because sweet Bernie has never done that before........... 

Bernie really is incredibly sweet. I don't know why he gave that UPS guy such a hard time. i suspect it was just because the guy was so afraid. I found it rather amusing however and quite unfair that his mommy immediately took the stance that the poor UPS guy must be a sex offender...  Completely validates everything I have ever said on this site about dog owners being oblivious. 

Here's a round up of statistics.

Which dog breeds are the most dangerous? The AVMA or American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an in-depth literature review to analyze existing studies on dog bites and serious injuries. Their findings indicate that there is no single breed that stands out as the most dangerous. According to their review, studies indicate breed is not a dependable marker or predictor of dangerous behavior in dogs. 

87.4% of Pit Bulls Pass the American Temperament Test

According to the American Temperament Tests Society, many of the top breeds often thought of as dangerous often consistently perform well in their testing. Even those considered dangerous or aggressive by most people often perform incredibly well.

The Temperament Test observes and measures temperament indicators such as stability, friendliness, protectiveness, shyness, and aggressiveness.

87.4% of the 931 American Pit Bull Terriers that tested passed the test. Their results are similar to Collies (80.8% of 896 dogs), German Shepherds (85.3% of 3383), and even higher than Golden Retrievers (85.6% of 813). (14)

According to the current testing data available, the lowest scoring breed is the Bearded Collie with a 56.9% passing rate. It’s worth noting that only 51 Bearded Collies have taken the test.

Yes pit bulls cause by far the most fatalities and are among the dogs you should be wary of the most, but that's not due to their temperament. It's due to their physicality, popularity, and owners.

The temperament test results

Chihuahuas are 68.8%. It's interesting to see all the results. They are mostly in line with what I would expect. Labrador Retrievers are 92.4%.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

Bernie really is incredibly sweet. I don't know why he gave that UPS guy such a hard time. i suspect it was just because the guy was so afraid. I found it rather amusing however and quite unfair that his mommy immediately took the stance that the poor UPS guy must be a sex offender...  Completely validates everything I have ever said on this site about dog owners being oblivious. 

A lot of dogs have a strong instinct to protect their pack from invading threats. The stranger UPS guy shows up, the dog barks and he goes away. Mission accomplished. But another day he comes back! Dog barks more aggressively. He leaves. Problem solved. Wait, he's back again! Time to escalate again. This time the dog will bite him.  As mentioned dog owners are oblivious, this is a common pattern.

We had a mail lady (now retired) who would drive around with treats in her jeep. She knew all the dogs in the area (rural where a lot of dogs are off leash on their properties). And never had a problem. But one day a substitute driver found her bag of treats in the jeep and reported her and she got suspended because it was against policy. So she told us, if I find treats in the mailbox I can't get in trouble for that, LOL.

Here is repost from Facebook, the New River Gorge Climbers' group https://www.facebook.com/groups/666392593432842
There are also photos of bitemarks posted there

Friendly reminder that if you’re a dog owner who brings your dog to the crag that has any history of biting or showing aggression towards people or other dogs be sure to tie them up far away from the approach trail or belay areas. As a dog owner, it’s obvious if your dog shows signs of aggression and this should be taken seriously. I was attacked by these two dogs while walking by this group climbing. She had no control of the dogs because she was belaying her partner. They were on leashes but tied up in the middle of the trail and jumped on me after I patiently paused and asked her if I could pass. Not cool.Note* I asked if I could pass because she was actively belaying and I was going to be close by when walking past. The dogs were not showing aggression from afar and was out of my line of site when I asked the question. When I started walking they came running at me.
PS it would be nice if someone could identify the dogs owner in a PM to me so I can ask if they have had their shots. I didn’t think to ask when it happened.

Glowering wrote:

Here's a round up of statistics.

Yes pit bulls cause by far the most fatalities and are among the dogs you should be wary of the most, but that's not due to their temperament. It's due to their physicality, popularity, and owners.

The temperament test results

Chihuahuas are 68.8%. It's interesting to see all the results. They are mostly in line with what I would expect. Labrador Retrievers are 92.4%.

Whether I drive a prius or an m1 abrams isn't an indicator of dangerous behavior, but there's a good reason its not  legal  for  me to own an m1 abrams

Todd Berlier wrote:

so true. only proves the point that its the owner's failed responsibility if they have an aggressive dog, much like it would be the driver's responsibilty in the case of the m1, not the car's.

Except we dont allow ownership of Abrams and that works very well 

Dr Illogical wrote:

You can legally buy a tank. 

try driving a tank down the highway and let me know how that goes for you ....

Greg Kosinski wrote:

try driving a tank down the highway and let me know how that goes for you ....

You’re still missing the point….

Greg Kosinski wrote:

try driving a tank down the highway and let me know how that goes for you ....

Does not mean owning one is outlawed. Not discussing if the tool will be happy about it...

To own a tank it would need to be disarmed. Unlike with a tank, you have to worry about how humane it would be to surgically remove a dogs jaw. So no, it’s effectively illegal to own a fully operational tank.

so sure, in a perfectly parallel hypothetical it would be fine to own a taxidermied pit bull but not a live one lol

J E wrote:

Whether I drive a prius or an m1 abrams isn't an indicator of dangerous behavior, but there's a good reason its not  legal  for  me to own an m1 abrams

So by that analogy any dog over say 50 pounds should be illegal. Including Golden Retrievers, Grate Danes, Huskys, German Shepherds, etc. which have all been involved in fatal attacks. We should also outlaw having more than 1 dog together at a time, since many fatal attacks are from multiple dogs.

pitts belong in pits

Dr Illogical wrote:

It's possible, though difficult, to own an armed tank. You need a permit for it, which is admittedly not given out but rarely. But it's not flat out illegal to own a tank that can shoot. Stop spreading disinformation just to prove a point (especially when you're comparing dogs to tanks, which has a huge amount of issues).

You’re being pedantic about unimportant details in a loose analogy to avoid addressing the actual point. There’s an enormous amount of obstacles that prevent you from getting an operational tank. Enough that it may as well be illegal for Joe Shmoe 

A permit to own a pit bull would be a viable solution considering their penchant For disemboweling children

So by that analogy any dog over say 50 pounds should be illegal. Including Golden Retrievers, Grate Danes, Huskys, German Shepherds, etc. which have all been involved in fatal attacks. We should also outlaw having more than 1 dog together at a time, since many fatal attacks are from multiple dogs

For some nebulous reason, pit bulls kill or maim more children than any of the others. If a pIbBlE is an m1a1 then a golden retriever is a Honda Accord. Yeah you could kill someone with an accord if you tried hard enough but the m1a1 is literally designed for killing

For some nebulous reason, pit bulls kill or maim more children than any of the others. If a pIbBlE is an m1a1 then a golden retriever is a Honda Accord. Yeah you could kill someone with an accord if you tried hard enough but the m1a1 is literally designed for killing

It's not a nebulous reason, Pit Bulls are the most common breed in the US and attract some of the worst dog owners.

I'd take this chart with a grain of salt because of the source (judging the source is the first step in critical analysis of information IMO) but if the underlying data is sound at all Pit Bulls are less dangerous than many other breeds. So again if there's a ban based on size it could make sense, if it just singles out a breed because of popularity and hype other breeds will just take their place.

If other dogs kill more per capita than pit bulls what's the reason only pit bulls should be banned?

Glowering wrote:

It's not a nebulous reason, Pit Bulls are the most common breed in the US and attract some of the worst dog owners.

I'd take this chart with a grain of salt because of the source (judging the source is the first step in critical analysis of information IMO) but if the underlying data is sound at all Pit Bulls are less dangerous than many other breeds. So again if there's a ban based on size it could make sense, if it just singles out a breed because of popularity and hype other breeds will just take their place.

If other dogs kill more per capita than pit bulls what's the reason only pit bulls should be banned?

"Pitbulls and Rottweilers make up 77% of all fatal dog bites, despite making up only 6% of the U.S. dog population"

https://coloradoinjurylaw.com/blog/dog-bite-statistics/#dog-bite-fatalities-by-breed

J E wrote:

"Pitbulls and Rottweilers make up 77% of all fatal dog bites, despite making up only 6% of the U.S. dog population"

https://coloradoinjurylaw.com/blog/dog-bite-statistics/#dog-bite-fatalities-by-breed

A study of all dog bite-related fatalities that occurred during the 10-year period 2000–2009 reported that 90% of the dogs involved were described in at least one media account with a single breed descriptor, potentially implying that the dog was purebred (Patronek et al., 2013). However, approximately 46% of the dogs in the US are mixed breed dogs (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2012), and it seemed unlikely to the authors that purebred dogs would be disproportionately represented among the dogs involved in these incidents. Further, in only 18% of the cases were the authors able to make a valid determination that the dog involved was a member of a distinct, recognized breed (Patronek et al., 2013). Nevertheless, unverified reports of the dog breeds involved in serious and fatal incidents have been used to develop opinions regarding perceived danger levels of different breeds1 (Voith et al, 2009, Voith et al, 2013, Patronek et al, 2013).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109002331500310X

Edit: oh, pit bull isn't even a breed so this only sort of applies 

"Pitbulls and Rottweilers make up 77% of all fatal dog bites, despite making up only 6% of the U.S. dog population"

https://coloradoinjurylaw.com/blog/dog-bite-statistics/#dog-bite-fatalities-by-breed

Like I said the first thing you should look at is the source of the information. coloradoinjurylaw.com/blog is probably an ambulance chasing lawyer. And this blog gives NO reference to that that figure or many of the other claims made on that page. 

Embark that does genetic tests on dogs by comparing it to the DNA of known breeds has 14.8% of US dogs at least part pit bull.

If other dogs kill more per capita than pit bulls what's the reason only pit bulls should be banned?