Mom Bites Pit Bulls Ear Off, Punches It In The Face To Save Her Daughter

[Mormolyce]

Okay there is generally 0 follow up on dog attacks to ensure proper identification.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...ed-fatalities/
Pertinent quote.
The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents - See more at: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil....rbglSptB.dpuf
From JAVMA and the CDC about the CDC's own previous report, and the quote is still very much in effect due to awful reporting.

“..to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed.” (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000, p. 838).
(About the CDC report and is 100 percent entirely relevant to most any reported "pitbull" stack. Check out how many attacks have a picture of the dog, not a dog.)

The ATTS who is not biased towards pitbulls and actually is a very legit organization found them to be the 16th ranked dog, in temperament.
http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

Pitbulls sell the news, that is how most the statistics are gathered. There has been tons of false identifications. Read about the man in South Carolina who was ripped apart by 4 or 5 pits... they are mutts. The baby who had its skull crushed by a pit, it was a Husky. Here is lovely link to blatant lies...
http://www.whas11.com/news/Metrosafe...162530556.html
Some quotes from it...
Bad piece of reporting. First they said the kids hand was bitten off by a pit bull. Then it was bitten on the finger by a sheltie. Irresponsible and sensational reporting....bad all around.
Poor journalism. You go from having "PIT BULL ATTACK" on the front headlines...to realizing it was actually a sheltie and changing it to "Dog bite." Really? This makes me so angry I don't even have the words to describe it. I'm literally at a loss for words.

The above quoted study found the environment had more to do with attacks then breed....
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...001.x/abstract
And more studies out there show that Pitbulls are likely to be owned by those with criminal background/intent then other dogs. From 4-10 times as likely.

Also dogsbite.org is awful about the following. They take into consideration upwards of 25dogs breeds as a pitbull plus mutts as a pitbull. Then when census comes out they fail to include those same breeds in the pitbull population. If they would it would still lead to a incredibly small percent of pitbulls beign aggressive since their population numbers would likely eclipse that of Labs, which are currently number 1. If they didn't include all those breeds and only included actual pitbulls then it would still have a small representation.
Really skews statistics by stating that these dogs are pitbulls in attacks but not in population.

Fair point, though pitbulls are a pretty unmistakeable breed.

If you lump pitbull mutts with purebreds and together they have proportionally higher bite/attack ratios I think that says something in itself.

[theostrichsays]

Fair point, though pitbulls are a pretty unmistakeable breed.

If you lump pitbull mutts with purebreds and together they have proportionally higher bite/attack ratios I think that says something in itself.

There is roughly 25 to 28 breeds commonly identified as "pitbulls." Not to take into effect mutts, many of which are simply terrriers. Many of which are part lab, because as a former breeder labs were on of the primary dogs that shitheads bred their dogs with to get larger frames/skullls.
I am all for pitbull legislation don't get me wrong, but it is more along the lines that if you have one it must be spay/neutered or you must be a yearly breeding fee, that way it reduces the population, because they are way overpopulated, and helps keep them out of the hands of morons who have no idea how to raise a dog, much less a large bred dog who has the capacity to cause damage.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if there are say, 5-10% false identifications.. Hell i'll even give you 20% for arguments sake. That still puts them far ahead of all other " bully " breeds combined. Combined with the fact the breed is so inbred, and the majority of owners are idiots who have no business owning a dog, let a lone a pit. The animal is down right more dangerous than any other breed, there is no trying to deny it.

Except evniroment plays more role in attacks then breed, it is in above mentioned link. Plus if you take all the dogs indentified as pitbulls then your looking at a population likely eclipsing labs, plus the likely hood of being owned by criminals compared to other dogs. Like I said I am personally all for legislation, and I don't believe they should be owned in large cities, because the chances of them being handled/raised improperly only goes up.
Plus as linked 82 percent of the dogs in attacks couldn't be properly identified. So unless you are umbrelling them, then the onus is on you to show proper identification.

[Blockygame]

Most Dogs are not a fan of unwanted attention from small children, as a rule of thumb people should keep this in mind.

[vickvinegar]

poor dog, too bad

[Stop Pretending]

Except evniroment plays more role in attacks then breed, it is in above mentioned link. Plus if you take all the dogs indentified as pitbulls then your looking at a population likely eclipsing labs, plus the likely hood of being owned by criminals compared to other dogs. Like I said I am personally all for legislation, and I don't believe they should be owned in large cities, because the chances of them being handled/raised improperly only goes up.
Plus as linked 82 percent of the dogs in attacks couldn't be properly identified. So unless you are umbrelling them, then the onus is on you to show proper identification.

I feel Pits should have a mandatory registration. And owners need to complete some sort of competency test.

This family, should not be allowed to have a pit. That infant is way to close to the dogs mouth. Oh, that pretty dog, is one of Mike Vick's fighting dogs.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...E&fr=yfp-t-901

[theostrichsays]

I feel Pits should have a mandatory registration. And owners need to complete some sort of competency test.

This family, should not be allowed to have a pit. That infant is way to close to the dogs mouth. Oh, that pretty dog, is one of Mike Vick's fighting dogs.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...E&fr=yfp-t-901

I agree 100 percent with the registration idea. I have actually voiced my opinion for it at various pitbull rallies I have attended, along with a drastic decrease in the population through required spay/neuter unless the dog is registered and a breeding fee is applied that way there are significantly less mix breeds people try to pass as them, and bad/criminal breeders.

[Adam Jensen]

Perhaps so, but being savaged by a chihuahua doesn't sound all that scary.

Its hard to be intimidated by a dog I can punt like a football.

[Stop Pretending]

Its hard to be intimidated by a dog I can punt like a football.

It's very hard to respect a dog breed that women shove in their purses.

[Aleksej89]

I have no idea what kind of torment a dog has to go through in order for it to even consider attacking a child.

I am not a "dog person", but the numerous dogs i met at my friends/family houses are very very friendly and playful.

Simply put, dogs do NOT attack human children unless:
1. Child is seriously threatening the dog's life or causing intense pain (extremely rare)
2. Dog is severely distressed/traumatized and it's behavior is volatile and unpredictable.

For a dog to attack a 2 year old child, it must have been HEAVILY traumatized during it's entire life.

A normal dog that was not tormented and was exposed to children during it's lifetime will usually develop a friendly bond with all children, or at least have a "neutral" stance of not caring all that much.

However the amount of brutal vicious aggression displayed by some dogs (seems pit bulls are very common) is beyond reasoning, and probably beyond any kind of treatment.

[-aiko-]

So OP where's the part about what the child did to provoke the dog? I don't even like dogs, but this so one sided.

Dunno, we tried asking the child but she was unresponsive.

[Deleted]

Finger up the ass...

[Fexus]

What is the deal with pit bull apologists? While it is true that environment may be the biggest factor in a dog's temperament, it seems some would like us to believe that a breed couldn't possibly be genetically predisposed to aggression.

[Celista]

What is the deal with pit bull apologists? While it is true that environment may be the biggest factor in a dog's temperament, it seems some would like us to believe that a breed couldn't possibly be genetically predisposed to aggression.

I don't know, especially considering that we have bred dogs to specifically display certain characteristics in specific breeds. There was even a micro experiment done with foxes in Russia, where the tamest foxes were bred together and the most aggressive ones bred together to show how selective breeding/genetics plays a role in domestication/animal behavior. What's interesting is that tame foxes started displaying physical characteristics that were different from their aggressive counterparts, such as shorter, curlier tails.



In regards to dogs, though, I think that it is important to keep in mind that environment plays just as large of a role in temperament than inherited characteristics, and that not all dogs of a particular breed display the same characteristics or inherited tendencies.

Are some dog breeds more aggressive than others?

It’s true that some breeds might be more likely to bite if we look at statistics gathered on biting and aggression. There are many reasons for this. One likely reason is that most dog breeds once served specific functions for humans. Some were highly prized for their guarding and protective tendencies, others for their hunting prowess, others for their fighting skills, and others for their “gameness” and tenacity. Even though pet dogs of these breeds rarely fulfill their original purposes these days, individuals still carry their ancestors’ DNA in their genes, which means that members of a particular breed might be predisposed to certain types of aggression. Despite this, it’s neither accurate nor wise to judge a dog by her breed. Far better predictors of aggressive behavior problems are a dog’s individual temperament and her history of interacting with people and other animals. You should always research breeds to be sure that the breed or breed mix you’re interested in is a good fit for you and your lifestyle.

Source

[-aiko-]

Finger up the ass...

Finger in my butt?

[Nitalee]

Pretty awesome story.