All dog breeds bite. How many dog breeds are involved in fatalities? At some point it isn't owners who don't pay attention. At some point it is the breed which is predisposed to fatal behavior.
PIT BULL TYPES
Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,35 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.36 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type.
It should also be considered that the incidence of pit bull-type dogs' involvement in severe and fatal attacks may represent high prevalence in neighborhoods that present high risk to the young children who are the most common victim of severe or fatal attacks. And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts37—breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.
Very nicely written and I agree. People should take the choice of dog seriously and make educated decisions about it. But you have pretty much supported what I have been saying. Don't cast a wide blanket over an entire breed. Many outside factors play role.This CDC pub is old, but shows purebred pitbulls to be more likely to be involved in a human fatality than crossbred pit bulls.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
As I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I can only speak from personal experience. Data is not too hard to find. I found the following to be interesting and pretty much in line with my thinking, although I'd be very unlikely to own certain breeds - including pit bulls - as long as I have kids around:
Finally, it is imperative to
keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could
be accurately calculated, they do not factor in ownerrelated issues. For example, less responsible owners or
owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may
be drawn differentially to certain breeds...
...Several interacting factors affect a dog’s propensityto bite, including heredity, sex, early experience,
socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), reproductive status, quality of ownership and
supervision, and victim behavior. For example, a study
in Denver of medically-attended dog bites in 1991 suggested that male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite
than female dogs, sexually intact dogs are 2.6 times
more likely to bite than neutered dogs, and chained
dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained
dogs.12 Communities have tried to address the dog bite
problem by focusing on different factors related to biting behavior...
...Although, it is not systematically reported, our
reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in
a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for
preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous
dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential
importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of
human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically
more than 1) that were roaming off the owners’ property. Some deaths might have been averted through more
stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash
laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite prevention effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and
programs has not been systematically evaluated, freeroaming dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are
problems that need to be addressed even if they do not
bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes).
Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws
can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a
dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s
breed.17 In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective.18 If dog owners are
required to assume legal liability for the behavior and
actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek
professional help in training and socializing their pets.
Other options include enforcing leash laws and laws
against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that
less than one half of 1% of DBRF were caused by
leashed animals off the owners’ property. Subdivisions
and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to
heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be
increasing the probability of children interacting with
unsupervised dogs
So how much is the breed of the dog and how much is owner ignorance, negligence, and malfeasance? I don't claim to know. I don't think you can write the whole breed off as brutish, but neither can you say there's nothing there regarding the breed.
Bottom line to me is one should carefully choose both the breed and the individual dog, especially when children are around. Owners should also be responsible and make sure their dog is well acclimated to children or take steps to keep the dog and children separated. In any case, proper adult supervision is required whenever dogs and children share a space.
While I am of the opinion that dogs are like people with regard to diversity of personality, regardless of breed (or ethnicity), I freely acknowledge that specific breeds were developed with specific temperments as well as physical traits in mind. In the case of the American Pit Bull Terrier, the desired temperment was one that was suitable to baiting (attacking, harassing) bulls and bears. That likely includes, among other traits, aggression and fearlessness - at least towards bulls and bears. But do genetically desired predispositions necessarily manifest in an individual dog of a specific breed? This is the Nature vs Nurture debate all over again. Currently prevailing thought on that topic concerning the human species seems to be that it's both - nature and nurture - that produce the end result. Nature provides the predisposition. Nurture provides the catalyst for manifestation. And in the human species at least, in my opinion, personalities seem to be much more culturally driven than they are ethnically driven.
Good stuff. A very fair, well thought out and unbiased opinion.While I am of the opinion that dogs are like people with regard to diversity of personality, regardless of breed (or ethnicity), I freely acknowledge that specific breeds were developed with specific temperments as well as physical traits in mind. In the case of the American Pit Bull Terrier, the desired temperment was one that was suitable to baiting (attacking, harassing) bulls and bears. That likely includes, among other traits, aggression and fearlessness - at least towards bulls and bears. But do genetically desired predispositions necessarily manifest in an individual dog of a specific breed? This is the Nature vs Nurture debate all over again. Currently prevailing thought on that topic concerning the human species seems to be that it's both - nature and nurture - that produce the end result. Nature provides the predisposition. Nurture provides the catalyst for manifestation. And in the human species at least, in my opinion, personalities seem to be much more culturally driven than they are ethnically driven.
I once saw a toy poodle eat a whole Mexican family. Darndest thing I ever did see.Guess silly us will just have to go off of personal experience instead of still unproven data. I will restate, until I see tests showing these dogs being pit bulls and not just some reporter saying it, I stand skeptical.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
The real question is not just the number of bite claims but the severity of bite claims.As part of my job I regularly review home liability claims and far too many of them are the result of a dog bite. I can tell you that the majority of our dog bites are from 'gentler' breeds - lots of lab, dalmation, and cocker spaniels who bite because of circumstances and/or the way they're treated. It's rare to see a bite claim from the more aggressive breeds but they sure seem to be the ones that garner all the media attention.
More often than not the common theme in these situations is carelessness and/or inattention on the part of the owner. Fences left in disrepair, dogs allowed to roam the neighborhood, kids unattended when a dog is around.
We had a little terrier mix who was territorial and would turn aggressive unexpectedly. Despite his small size we took no chances that he might bite someone. When we had company he was confined to an area away from people and when we walked him he was muzzled.
As with so many of today's issues it's about being a responsible human being more than anything else. Respect the potential dangers and take steps to prevent tragic incidents. Why that's so difficult for people I will never understand.
They range and typically depend on circumstance. I've seen liability limits exhausted (one such instance was from 2 dalmations who were allowed to run free in their neighborhood - attacked a woman who was walking her little dog. Killed the little dog, seriously injured her. By the time all was said and done it was upwards of a $400k claim.) and 'minor' bites that resulted in stitches, bandages, etc. They do tend to get costly because people like to sue after being bitten.The real question is not just the number of bite claims but the severity of bite claims.
What breeds generate concerns/higher rates.They range and typically depend on circumstance. I've seen liability limits exhausted (one such instance was from 2 dalmations who were allowed to run free in their neighborhood - attacked a woman who was walking her little dog. Killed the little dog, seriously injured her. By the time all was said and done it was upwards of a $400k claim.) and 'minor' bites that resulted in stitches, bandages, etc. They do tend to get costly because people like to sue after being bitten.
Dog bite frequency and severity is something we monitor very carefully and we've been back and forth many times over the years re: what breeds we allow policy holders to own, how tolerant we are of continuing a policy once a bite claim happens, etc. There's nothing I hate more than giving someone a choice between euthanizing their dog or losing their home insurance, especially when the situation was completely preventable. Frustrating and sad.
Until a couple of years ago we had pit bull, rottweiler, and presa canario called out as 'ineligible' breeds. Now we ask history of aggressive behavior/previous bite instead because we found narrowing to breed wasn't helping loss ratios. Incidentally, we don't uprate for history of dog related loss nor do we offer the option to exclude animal liability coverage. We prefer to simply decline the riskier business.What breeds generate concerns/higher rates.
You do realize that Pitbulls have been called "nannydogs" for a reason.Pit Bulls have been bred over the years for their aggressiveness and their ability to turn that aggressiveness into serious results. They are not the best choices for house pets especially around children.
Funny thing here, when my son moved into his apartment this breed was on the banned list along with the bully breeds.All I know is our dachshund murders stuffed animals like a serial killer & then likes to play with the dismembered corpses. Clearly a breed that deserves to be eyed carefully.
An aggressive daschund can do a LOT of damage to an apartment. They were bred to go into holes after badgers and drag them out, after all.Funny thing here, when my son moved into his apartment this breed was on the banned list along with the bully breeds.