The deadliest dogsMerritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:
[blockquote]If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
[/blockquote]Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
===============================
In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:
[blockquote]"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)
Quote:
[/blockquote]The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.
There are some stats for you.
I don't see any vicious chihuahuas or dachshunds on the list... I wonder why...
Sorry--I had work to do. Let's see here.....you found one "study". If I may borrow a phrase from VC, "I never heard of the guy". Who is he, and what are his credentials? For all I know it's VC under an alias. Where was the study done? In certain areas, or all over the U.S. and Canada? Was any of this verified?
Quote:
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes...
Had to add quite a few others to the mix to get the desired "stats"?
Quote:
Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics.
Opinion used in a study?
Quote:
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."
Seems to me that Rottweilers should be the boogeyman? "Extremely unlikely"--more opinion--this is supposed to be a reliable study? C'mon--surely you can do better than that.
Quote:
Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas.
No verification, opinions included, plenty of info. missing (such as percentage of X-breed of dogs in an area where a fatality occurred), etc. etc. etc. Looks like something a pollitician would come up with....or HCI.
ISPC, if you could grow a dachshund or chihuahua to 50 lbs or better, nobody would be safe.....[8D]
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
anyway, you've made it clear you do not think there is any more danger with a pit bull than a beagle, you ignore all the facts that state pits are much more unpredictable, dangerous, intolerant of other animal, instinctive to agressions etc etc. hell even pit bull ownerssites warn of the special needs of the dogs and theres a reason for it !
(sigh) oh well, I led you to some water, that you refuse to drink is your choice I suppose ..........
I guess I should just ignore all the experiences I've had over the years--as best I can recall, beginning when I was around 10 to the present (last pb I was around was yesterday evening).
I should only believe what someone I never heard of wrote, plus what someone who gets their "information" from the media tells me--someone who has declared theyhave anintellect much superior to mine (and anyone else that has a different opinion than his ). He had to declare it, else nobody would have ever guessed.[8D]
Even ignore the "stats" you gave concerning other breeds that are as dangerous, if not moreso, than pb's because......well, I'm not sure why, just because I guess. The pb is the boogeyman here, forget everything else.
Quote:
anyway, you've made it clear you do not think there is any more danger with a pit bull than a beagle,...
Now you are taking a page from VC's playbook (don't be suprised if he charges you for it). I never said that a pb couldn't be more dangerous than a beagle. Sure they can--so can any breed that's larger than a beagle--so? Does that make them inherently evil?
They simply are not the killing machines that a few of you have tried to make them out to be on this thread. The one I saw yesterday lives with 14 other dogs--almost all of them smaller and much weaker than he is, not to mention 5 kids and several horses. The only dog in the bunch that might stand a chance if he were to live up to the reputation some of you have given him here is a black lab--all the rest are smaller and/or puppies. The two I saw last week (father and son) live with at least one other dog (border collie), at a business where folks come and go all the time, not to mention the owner's grandkids.
I do believe they can be a threat if mistreated, inbred, etc.--just like any other. Certain folks treat these dogs just like certain folks treat handguns--and it seems they use a lot of the same arguments.
I posted a site to bandogs--a breed that on average will make mincemeat of a pb on any given day. The stats you gave showed rottweillers to be much more of a threat than pb's. But pb's are still the boogeyman--why is that?
One other thing I forgot to ask--did those stats you gave give any insight to why those deaths occurred? For instance, did any of those killers just snap, were they mistreated, were they inbred, were they guard dogs just doing their job, etc, etc, etc.? You know as well as I do that you can "make" stats say pretty much anything you want.
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
Location: Obama made me join the NRA for 5 years !
Posts: 2,181
RE: pit bull stats
Quote:
I guess I should just ignore all the experiences I've had over the years--as best I can recall, beginning when I was around 10 to the present (last pb I was around was yesterday evening).
ignore them ? no
I have driven intoxicated before and never had any problems, should I therefore conclude that drinking and driving isn't dangerous ?
Quote:
I should only believe what someone I never heard of wrote, plus what someone who gets their "information" from the media tells me--someone who has declared theyhave anintellect much superior to mine (and anyone else that has a different opinion than his ). He had to declare it, else nobody would have ever guessed.
no, since you and I are not experts, since you and I didn't conduct studies, or in any qualify to really hammer down which breeds of dogs are more agressive, more prone to injuring people etc, we turn to information by way of print, internet, books, etc etc.
almost every site you find, book you read, magazine you pick up and shows etc on pit bull type dogs will tell you they need exceptional owners to have them.
thats just fact, not opinion, no different than the sun will rise tomorrow its that much fact
why? its the way they are.
beagles run rabbits
healers heal cattle
labs like water
pit bulls are aggressive and unpredictable
those are trues, like it or not
Quote:
Even ignore the "stats" you gave concerning other breeds that are as dangerous, if not moreso, than pb's because......well, I'm not sure why, just because I guess. The pb is the boogeyman here, forget everything else.
no one is forgetting anything, its just being realistic about a certain type of dog bred decades and decades with certain traits that make them special dogs to own and care for
Quote:
Now you are taking a page from VC's playbook (don't be suprised if he charges you for it). I never said that a pb couldn't be more dangerous than a beagle. Sure they can--so can any breed that's larger than a beagle--so? Does that make them inherently evil?
it proves a point - certain dogs show different instincts - beagles run rabbits, pit bulls ..... hmmmmmm what were they bred for LBR? Aggression, fighting, things like that ?
Quote:
They simply are not the killing machines that a few of you have tried to make them out to be on this thread.
they are built as killing machines, you cannot deny that, but no one has said they're anything but dogs that need special owners and without regulations on who should have them, anyone else around them are in greater than normal danger
Quote:
The one I saw yesterday lives with 14 other dogs--almost all of them smaller and much weaker than he is, not to mention 5 kids and several horses. The only dog in the bunch that might stand a chance if he were to live up to the reputation some of you have given him here is a black lab--all the rest are smaller and/or puppies. The two I saw last week (father and son) live with at least one other dog (border collie), at a business where folks come and go all the time, not to mention the owner's grandkids.
that second guy is carrying a HUGE liability .... I hope he knows that.
Quote:
I do believe they can be a threat if mistreated, inbred, etc.--just like any other. Certain folks treat these dogs just like certain folks treat handguns--and it seems they use a lot of the same arguments.
are you COMPLETELY tossing aside the instincts of a pit bull, what they were bred for and the way their bodies are built ?
Quote:
I posted a site to bandogs--a breed that on average will make mincemeat of a pb on any given day. The stats you gave showed rottweillers to be much more of a threat than pb's. But pb's are still the boogeyman--why is that?
Rots are pit bull type and fall under the dangerous dog categories, don't they ?
Quote:
One other thing I forgot to ask--did those stats you gave give any insight to why those deaths occurred? For instance, did any of those killers just snap, were they mistreated, were they inbred, were they guard dogs just doing their job, etc, etc, etc.? You know as well as I do that you can "make" stats say pretty much anything you want.
I guess you just think its purely coincidental the results that finger the pit bull type dog ??
I have driven intoxicated before and never had any problems, should I therefore conclude that drinking and driving isn't dangerous ?
No, but if you had done it on a regular basis for the past 30 years or so your opinon towards it would have a lot more foundation, and I believe your opinion would be that you are no danger at all.
Quote:
almost every site you find, book you read, magazine you pick up and shows etc on pit bull type dogs will tell you they need exceptional owners to have them.
As does any big dog.
Quote:
it proves a point -
Implying I said something that I didn't proves a point?
Quote:
they are built as killing machines, you cannot deny that,
I believe I've denied that several times already. Another HCI tactic, like saying handguns are made for killing.
Quote:
are you COMPLETELY tossing aside the instincts of a pit bull, what they were bred for and the way their bodies are built ?
I'm assuming you are a normal heterosexual male. Your instincts are to procreate, not just with your wife,and you are equipped to do. Does that automatically make you a rapist, or at best an adulterer?
Quote:
Rots are pit bull type and fall under the dangerous dog categories, don't they ?
Quote:
I guess you just think its purely coincidental the results that finger the pit bull type dog ??
Rots are rots. Now we are into "pit bull types"? Quite an expansion there. Have to include a whole gob of different dogs--where do you draw the line? Back to my questions--regulate every dog over 20#? What about dobermans, german shepards, great danes, st. bernards, etc. etc. etc.? Where would the regulation stop?
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
The publicity given "pit bull" cases suggests there is a plethora of these dogs around, but AKC registered only 1810 individual Staffordshire Bull Terriers and 549 litters in the six years from 1990-1995, and 6588 American Staffordshire Terriers and 1803 litters in the same period. People who breed these dogs for fighting or criminal purposes do not register with either AKC or UKC.
the #'s are old but it just goes to show the amount of poor Breeding there is for these dogs.....6588 registered AKC American staffordshire terriers from 1990-1995
taken from http://www.canismajor.com/dog/amstaff.html
most of it i agree with.
the "pit Bull" is the most abused and Misused dog of all time....
and anymore the majority of owners are irresponsible.
its my opinion that with propertraining that the Amstaff is one of the best dogs a active family whos home allthe timecan own....if you wanna be a deadbeat dog owner, its one of the worst.
i dont disagree with you guys that say youwant them banned...i understand why.
i just dont think its gonna change anything.people that haveviolent dogs are gonna have violent dogs, a lawagainst the"pit bull" isnt gonna change that.
i wonder how many of the 6588 AKC registereddogs(1990-1995) had to be put down due tobeingun-fit for society(attack, evil temperment....ect) i can only guess but my guess is none.
just a side thought:
whats the Point of owning anydog if your not gonna work or"pay attention" to him??...
there are plenty of people that own dogs where all they do is feed and water them and thats it.....when people like this own "pitbulls" its nota good thing. if all you want to do is Feed and Water your dog...get a cat.. you dont need a dog.
pit bull stats
). He had to declare it, else nobody would have ever guessed.[8D]
). He had to declare it, else nobody would have ever guessed.
