I need information and statistics - PLEASE!

[sophie's-mom]

I am in the process of contacting a local reporter regarding some MISinformation an ACO has stated in the local paper. I'm searching the archives but was hoping for anything additional that you might be able to provide.

PLEASE DO NOT INUNDATE THIS WOMAN'S E-MAIL WITH PASSIONATE WRITINGS UNTIL I CAN GET SOME FACTS TO HER.

The following was in today's paper:

Frankie Jones works with Macon Animal Control. He says there are several dogs you should be aware of. Jones says Rottweiler dogs do not mix well with children. Doberman Pinschers are known to turn on owners after about 10 years. And when it comes to Pitt Bulls, it's all in how you breed and raise them.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.13wmaz.com/news/top_stori...?storyid=19032

[miccmill]

Good Grief!

Here's a couple links with some facts.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1878...ml#temperament

http://www.dpcc.ca/dpcc-factsandmyths.htm

I'm still looking

[Judi W]

He is giving his opinions based upon his experiences. You can offer opinions in return based upon your experiences as well, but statistics are always difficult and often backfire. A bit difficult to go in and say Rottweilers are not dangerous to children when one has just killed a child! Note also, his statement regarding mixes. This would be based upon the often conflicting character attributes that come from mixing breeds that do not balance the drives. He is quite correct regarding the heritage of a properly bred Pittie. The statement about the Dobes is truly most confusing and I am confident he will hear from the Doberman people.

Note on the recent killing of the child. There were two adults present and one child. This dog did not attack one of the adults, it went for the more vulnerable child viciously. The mark of a cowardly vicious dog, not a dog that was protecting.

[TrishB]

Oh Lord. You've got to love people who have the power to go to print.

Send me your personal email - I'll send you a bunch of facts to straighten this woman out. A personal favourite is Dr. Stanley Corens article:

A breed gone bad?
Dr. Stanley Coren
National Post
November 9, 2004

What has happened to the pit bull terrier? Imagine the confusion of a dog-loving time-traveller from the early 1900s arriving in Ontario today. What would he think when he learned that a dog that was considered to be a "fun" family dog is now perceived as a deadly menace that the Ontario government wants to ban. It was because of the pit bull's friendly, playful, yet stubborn personality that one was chosen to play the role of Petey, the comic dog with the circle drawn around his eye, in the Our Gang and Little Rascals movies. Nipper, the dog listening to his master's voice played on a gramophone in the RCA trademark, is another sociable pit bull. The courage of the breed was so admired that a pit bull became the symbol of America in the U.S. war
bond drive during the First World War.

Has the breed simply gone bad over the last few decades?

The origin of the pit bull terrier was in Elizabethan England, when they were used as fighting dogs. They get their name from the fact that they were literally placed in a pit-shaped arena and required to fight a bull while bets were taken on the outcome. In 1835, when the British Parliament banned this sport, gamblers turned to betting on fights between dogs. Several different breeds were popular for this alternative blood sport, but all kept the old generic label of "pit bull terriers." This is generally understood to include the American bulldog, the American pit bull terrier, the Staffordshire terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier, although the name is often
used also to refer to crossbreeds (such as Rottweiler and Staffordshire mixes) and other breeds with similar characteristics.

The "perfect" pit bull had to have a bit of a dual personality. It had to be aggressive toward other dogs, but not toward human beings, since the dogs required extensive handling by their owners before and during their fights. Most of the dog handlers were working-class and kept the dogs in their family homes, so that aggression toward people was not tolerated. Any dogs that bit human beings were usually put down. As a result, pit bulls were fairly good family pets.

For many years the reputation of pit bulls remained good. The "vicious and dangerous breeds" of dog that the media focused on at various times were chows chows in the 1930s, German shepherds in the 1940s, Doberman pinschers in the late 1950s and early 1960s and Rottweilers in the 1970s. What often determined the public's view of which breeds were dangerous was the nature of the people who chose to own them. If highly respected members of society selected a breed, it was usually deemed safe, while if unsavory or criminal people owned the dogs, they took on their owners' reputation.

This was ultimately the downfall of the pit bull. The early 1980s saw an upsurge in the popularity of pit bulls as guard dogs for drug dealers and as an expression of machismo for street toughs who might have criminal links. The dogs were often deliberately bred to be aggressive and were often used as weapons for intimidation. Thus it is not surprising to find that the 1980s also saw several widely publicized cases in which human beings were badly mauled by pit bulls. Because of this the pit bull became the newest entry into the bestiary of "vicious, evil devil dogs."

Is this bad reputation justified? To assess the degree of danger that a dog presents, you must consider both ends of the leash. It is possible to control the degree of aggression that any dog shows by appropriate (or inappropriate) training and rearing practices. Let's consider what the scientific evidence says about dogs that bite.

Male dogs that have not been neutered account for close to 70% of all dog bites. Dogs that are kept tied outside on a chain are 2.8 times more likely to bite than others, and dogs that are simply kept outside in a yard all of the time are twice as likely to bite. Dogs that have been physically abused, or for which the major form of control has been punishment, are more than six times more likely to bite.

A lot can be done to reduce the incidence of dog bites, entirely apart from the dog's breed. A well-socialized dog is unlikely to bite. The simple action of taking a dog to a basic obedience class (at which a group of people stand around in a circle and teach Lassie to sit, come and lie down on command) reduces the likelihood that the dog will bite by 90%. A one-hour class for children on "bite-proofing" has been shown to reduce the risk that a child will be bitten by a dog by over 80%. Combining dog obedience and child education can thus produce a 98% reduction in dog-bite injuries without banning any specific breed of dog.

Breeding is also important, however. A flourishing underground dog-fighting circuit still demands aggressive dogs. There are many people who want a vicious dog to boost their ego, establish a tough image or protect premises that may house legal or illegal materials that could attract thieves or home invasions. And many breeders are willing to provide dogs (often dogs that fit the pit bull classification) that can be guaranteed to be threatening and dangerous.

Certain code words are used for those who want such deadly dogs. Type the words "game bred" into your Web browser, and you will see what I mean. It will bring you to one source of the problem. Perhaps legislation that can charge breeders when the dogs that they sell become aggressive threats to society is needed to force them to breed safe dogs and to sell them only to responsible dog owners. This is apt to be a much more successful course of action than banning specific breeds. Inside any well-bred and well-socialized Pit Bull, we can still find Petey and Nipper.

Stanley Coren is a Professor of Psychology at the University of British Columbia and author of many books on dog behaviour, including How Dogs Think.

© National Post 2004

[Judi W]

but, he does not attack the Pittie. In fact he defends the well-bred Pit.

[sophie's-mom]

Originally Posted by Judi W

A bit difficult to go in and say Rottweilers are not dangerous to children when one has just killed a child!

But not difficult to go in and say that not ALL Rottweilers are dangerous.

It's all good and fine for him to state the information that he did.....but right now, I don't have a problem owning a Rottweiler......and I don't want one. I don't want my neighbor basing his opinion of my dog on an article he read where an "authority" stated my dog doesn't mix well with his children. I surely don't want lawmakers deciding that his "opinion" is worthy of passing a breed specific law because there are children in my town. And I REALLY don't want to have to defend my dog every time I decide to go out in public because this guy has had a particular experience with any dog.

It's not a FACT that ALL Rottweilers do not mix well with children. It's not a FACT that ALL Doberman's turn on their owners after about 10 years. It's not a FACT that mixing a pit bull with ANY other dog will make it vicious. It should be noted that these are not facts and the ACOs in Macon should be better informed. Spouting off like he did is bad for me and I prefer to try to catch things BEFORE they become an issue and I find myself coming here because I have to MOVE based on the new BSL.

[Judi W]

Exactly and that is why you should write of your experiences and not hesitate to quote the character portion of the ADRK standard. Do that and bring in the same arguements he used for the Pittie about properly bred and brought up.

[Judi W]

Behavior / Temperament:
Good natured, placid in basic disposition and fond of children, very devoted, obedient, biddable and eager to work. His appearance is natural and rustic, his behavior self assured, steady and fearless. He reacts to his surroundings with great alertness.

[Bucky's Mom]

"FATAL DOG ATTACKS"
The Stories Behind the Statistics
by Karen Delise

THE STATISTICS - FATAL DOG ATTACKS IN THE U.S. FROM 1965 - 2001 *

The study covers 431 documented human fatalities from a dog attack.

Location of Attack
25% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs
25% resulted from dogs loose in their yard
23% occurred inside the home
17% resulted from attacks by dogs roaming off their property
10% involved leashed dogs or miscellaneous circumstances

Number of Dogs
68% of all fatal attacks were inflicted by a single dog
32% was the result of a multiple dog attack

Victim Profile
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old

The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).

The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).

Boys aged 1 - 12 years old were 2.5 times more likely to be the victim of a fatal dog attack than girls of the same age.

Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.
From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.

Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;
26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined).

States with the Most Fatalities - 1965-2001
California, 47; Texas, 32; Alaska, 26; Florida, 22; New York, 19; Michigan, 18; Illinois, 18; North Carolina, 17; Georgia, 16.

While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).

This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events.

The preceding information and statistics are excerpts from the book:

* "FATAL DOG ATTACKS: The Stories Behind the Statistics", by Karen Delise

[MaddoxsMom]

Does this guy sound as ridiculous to any of you as he does to me...for example...

Jones says according to his experience in animal control, the most dangerous dogs are the mixed breeds. He adds if you feel a dog is about to attack don't run.

Now, is that a totally contradictory statement or what??? He says not to run, but if the dog attacks, stay calm but try to get away...hmmmmmm

I can almost hear the dueling banjo theme...

[sophie's-mom]

If you haven't watched the video below the picture of the snarling mixed breed...do so. This man's opinion is easily taken as FACT, the way it is stated.

Originally Posted by MaddoxsMom

I can almost hear the dueling banjo theme...

OH, COME ON!!!

[miccmill]

When someone mixes statements based on magical thinking and those based on fact, it lends credibility to the myth.

Doberman Pinschers are known to turn on owners after about 10 years. And when it comes to Pitt Bulls, it's all in how you breed and raise them.

This is the statement I find objectionable. It's presented as fact and people will believe it because he is speaking from a position of "authority".

[Bucky's Mom]

Many ACO Officers are NOT even totally familiar with WHAT breed of dog they are dealing with - they see certain characteristics and then label the dog what they want - this test was posted on the forum previously - see how you do

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by Bucky's Mom

"FATAL DOG ATTACKS"
The Stories Behind the Statistics
by Karen Delise

Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),
German Shepherd Dogs (9%),
Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%),
Malamutes (4%),
Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%),
Chow Chows (3%),
Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

This section has always irked me. I've reformatted it so it's a little easier to read.

Why are "Pit Bull" and "Pit-bull-type" the only dogs that have both their purebred and their mixed counterparts combined? That obviously increases their numbers. Why aren't the "Pit-bull-type" dogs entered in the mix breed dogs? The "mix breed dogs" aren't broken down by their "type". It skews the numbers.

For that matter, "Wolf Dogs" - umm, mixed with what? Again, these are mixes of 50% wolf and 50% lord knows what. You can't label them with a name like "Wolf Dogs" and expect to have them all as equals. And were they really 50%?

What percentage of a dog needs to be mixed, before it falls into the "mixed" catagory? How would you prove that? Let me tell you, I've seen some shepherd mixes that were very far removed from having any pure blood, but they still retained much of the look of the dominant breed. Beagle mixes are the same.

Please don't get me wrong - Karen's work and her book are wonderful. However, the decision to group mixes in with purebred numbers is highly misleading. Notice how "American Staffordshire Terriers" and "Staffordshire Bull Terriers" are not on that list? However, it's implied due too the "pit-bull-type" so that people can continue to convince themselves that they're all the same thing.

Statistics are very dangerous. They can say whatever someone WANTS them to say, from their perspective. 50% of dog bites were from a Rottweiler in one township one year. Screams to have them banned rang out. Until someone calmly reported that there were only 2 reported dog bites that year, and the other was by a Border Collie.

The fact is that these reports of bites were made by untrained people. What one feels is a Rottweiler, another might not. Or while one may make the observation that it's a mixed breed, another might list a purebreed that it looks the most like.

Further criteria when recording bites is required - and they must be required. Age, sex, altered?, health status, breed, registered?, mix types, training status, weight, temperament.... and that's just on the dog! Nevermind the victim, location, situation.... There's so much more to consider, but until we have consistent and reliable data that can be shared across the board, the numbers will always be skewed, the perception always be clouded.

[sophie's-mom]

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/top_stori...?storyid=19032

A Central Georgia family is saying goodbye to a little girl mauled to death by a Rottweiler. Her funeral is Wednesday.

Eyewitness News took a closer look at the problem of dog bites and talked to an animal control officer about the danger of some dogs on Monday. It's a story that has many of you talking back to us.

AMBER OF MACON:
"I challenge you to speak with breeders and owners of Doberman Pinschers and Rottweilers to learn the real personality and temperaments of these dogs. Properly raised, [they] make first-class canine citizens and family dogs."

LESLIE OF WARNER ROBINS:
"No specific breed of dog is inherently bad. No specific breed of dog is born more prone to have problems. And Dobermans do not turn on their owners after ten years."

ANN OF INDIANA:
"My dogs are all Rottweilers. I've had many dogs over the years and have never seen a breed of dog so good with children. Obviously, they're a rather large dog, so it's imperative to make sure to screen a large dog for temperament issues and then socialize them well around children."

On Wednesday, Eyewitness News broke down the numbers.

Every 40 seconds, someone in America is treated for a dog bite, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Dogs bite around 4.7 million people each year; half of the people hurt are children.

But what kinds of dogs are to blame? The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reports the top three offenders are Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and German Shepherds. In a study spanning 20 years, researchers found that dogs attacked and killed more than 300 people, most of them children. It concluded that, based upon the data collected, there is a breed-specific problem when it comes to fatal dog attacks.

The Bibb County Health Department reports that dogs have bitten 156 people so far this year. The only breed to reach double digits was Pit Bulls with ten bites. More than half the biters were classified as mixed-breed dogs, but the study didn't show what made up those mixes.

JOHN C. WRIGHT, ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST:
"Whenever you have a dog bite, there are three different factors that you have to look at -- one, certainly, is the characteristics of the dog who's doing the biting, but the other two things have to do with the setting in which the bite is taking place, and then the characteristics of the victim."

Dr. John C. Wright is a psychology professor at Mercer University. He's been studying animal behavior for more than 30 years and has authored several books, published in several countries. He says he's seen the stats that say certain breeds are aggressive. The problem is the bites from big dogs are more severe and probably more reported.

JOHN C. WRIGHT, ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST:
"I think that we've pretty much come to the conclusion that it's both a combination of good breeding and good rearing, and one without the other is probably a pretty risky phenomenon. So there are as many good Pit Bulls as there are nasty Pit Bulls, as there would be for Cocker Spaniels."

But that doesn't mean all dogs are created equal. When you combine the training, or lack of it, and the size of the dog, some canines are more destructive.

JOHN C. WRIGHT, ANIMAL BEHAVIORIST:
"What you want to have is, if you're going to have a large-muscled dog who might be able to deliver a more severe bite, you want to make sure that dog has the best rearing, and you're getting it from the best pedigree that you can."

So if any breed can be dangerous, what types of dogs are dangerous? Dr. Wright says there are certain risk factors, a profile of sorts, especially for dogs around children.

Based on statistics, Dr. Wright says the most dangerous dog is a male dog that isn't neutered and is a large breed. Dogs that are chained up alone for more than eight hours a day can also be more dangerous.