The studies of fatal dog attacks or "canine homicides" are potentially most useful because they give us more details and focus on obviously serious injuries. Nevertheless, even these studies raise questions. Three commonly accepted sources of information about canine homicides are the CDC, Merritt Clifton (editor of Animal People), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks). However, none of their figures agree. This is largely because of the difficulties involved in gathering dog bite statistics. When the CDC reported on canine homicides, one of their methods of ensuring accuracy was to eliminate all death reports that did not appear in LexisNexis. When Delise did her study, she included all homicides which were confirmed in other reliable ways, such as by interviews and police files, and arrived at a figure that was 100 deaths higher than the CDC. Clifton's study includes both the USA and Canada, and is derived from newspaper accounts as well as his review of photographs and files.

Delise illustrates the information problem in the following graphic way (quoted from E-mail by her to Attorney Kenneth Phillips):

Consider five fatal attacks included in the CDC statistics.

A man was bitten in the forearm by a Pit bull. The bite was not serious but introduced into the wound was a virulent and fast spreading bacteria. The man died 4 days later from this virulent bacterial infection.

A teenage girl give birth to a infant, distraught and frightened, she tossed the hours-old infant into a neighboring-junk-strewn yard where two Pit bulls resided. The dogs killed the newborn.

A German shepherd mixed breed dog went into a bedroom, lifted a newborn out of a crib and carried the infant (by the head) into the living room where the adults were seated.

A man restrains his girlfriend, while ordering his Pit bull to repeatedly attack her. He is eventually convicted of murder and is serving a 20-year sentence.

An elderly man attempts to stop his German Shepherd dog from fence fighting with his neighbor's dog, the dog turns on his owner, severely mauling him, inflicting fatal head and neck wounds.

The CDC was right, in that five people died as a result of a dog bite. But were all these bites the result of aggression? Were they the same type or level of aggression? Which behaviors initiated the attack, human or canine? So the number of deaths by dogs (as per the CDC) cannot be used to define aggression, or the aggression of certain breeds, as aggression is not defined or qualified.

The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

The court then stated that,

Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#statistics

Why are none of the others a voice of reason? Yours wasn't.

Are you a mind reader now? You can tell why someone owns a dog? Interesting.

So, what makes you think you know the real reasons? Some want protection. Some just like the breed. Some take in rescue dogs. There are lots of reasons. Surely you could see that, right?

I dont trust any stranger dogs, it's just a good idea to let them sniff you our first. Even those lil chihuahuas are crazy.

Pit pulls are no different than any other breed.

I would proudly own any of those breeds and I would train them and treat them with the respect they deserve. If any of them showed mental unwellness in being dangerously aggressive I would put them down as any one of the them could have this problem.

Most problems with dogs come from owners who do not know about canines and do not treat the animal with the respect they deserve.

Also, all dogs need to be watched around children. There is no completely safe situation there. Children are erratic. they scream, they show their teeth and their faces are too close to a dogs face. Dogs do not recognize a smile as we do, it is a threat.

well depends on the way a dog is raised alot to do with it i use to have 1/2 wolf and 1/2 husky dogs are like humans in 1 way they like certain people and others they don't i wouldnt put everything on 1 breed of a dog as i love all dogs i owned several dogs and been around almost every breed i even played with pitbulls if you treat dogs good they good to you 95% or more of the time so don't worry so much cheers

That's an excellent point. My niece lives with 2 pitbulls and a spoiled chihuahua, and I worry more about the chihuahua biting her than the pitbulls hurting her.

Yeah I choose them so people like you that don't understand them can't just kill them off in a breed specific haulocaust!

You want real reasons-->Pits Bulls enjoy making people smile & laugh, they love us unconditionally, my dogs let me know I am loved every day without any doubts, they care when I cry, when I can't sleep they comfort me, they are there for you no matter what you are going through and will lend you the strength to cope with the crappiest days life throws your way! I have a bond with pittys that I have never experienced with other breeds (aside from a wolf mix)!

I not the white trash, drug dealing, ignorant or indigent back yard breeder of fighting dogs you'd like to think we all are! I am highly educated and successful and I have 15 yrs experience with these dogs! I currently own 1 rescued dog and 1 show bred dog. Neither is dog or people aggressive. I train, exercise, and socialize them to ensure they are not monsters, just normal every day DOGS!

Have you ever even seen one, beside on TV being portrayed as a monster?

ATTS Breed Statistics
as of June 12, 2010

Page 1: Afghan Hound - Belgian Malinois
Breed Name Tested Passed Failed Percent
AFGHAN HOUND 162 117 45 72.2%
AIREDALE TERRIER 101 78 23 77.2%
AKITA 514 387 127 75.3%
ALASKAN MALAMUTE 222 189 33 85.1%

AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 772 664 108 86.0%

AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 608 510 98 83.9%
AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG 184 145 39 78.8%
AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD 634 517 117 81.5%
BEAGLE 71 57 14 80.3%
LABRADOR RETRIEVER 763 704 59 92.3%
CHESAPEAKE BAY RETRIEVER 108 93 15 86.1%
CHIHUAHUA 38 27 11 71.1%
CHINESE CRESTED 33 25 8 75.8%
CHINESE SHAR-PEI 210 149 61 71.0%
CHOW CHOW 98 70 28 71.4%
COCKER SPANIEL 227 186 41 81.9%
COLLIE 846 674 172 79.7%
CURLY-COATED RETRIEVER 174 159 15 91.4%
DACHSHUND (MINIATURE LONGHAIRED)25 22 3 88.0%
DACHSHUND (MINIATURE SMOOTH) 33 26 7 78.8%
DACHSHUND (MINIATURE WIREHAIRED)24 20 4 83.3%
DACHSHUND (STANDARD LONGHAIR) 34 25 9 73.5%
DACHSHUND (STANDARD SMOOTH) 48 33 15 68.8%
DACHSHUND (STANDARD WIREHAIRED) 30 25 5 83.3%
DALMATIAN 329 271 58 82.4%


REAL statistics taken from http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

it is but a human that can wish to destroy what harms, turning itself into the same thing as what it wished to destroy.

an agressive hating jealous mean human, a agressive hating jealous dog.

it is not for man to destroy what itself does not like, but rather for man to come to understand what first made all things into anything that is less than desirable for all, to learn how to uncreate it.

so you want some negative reasons to not own a pit?

they might forget to 'go' outside, you gotta buy the HUGE bags of doggie food, they leave puddles when slurpin up their water, they hog the bed...and the sofa..and the recliner.., they go thru extra large rawhides like there's no tomorrow, they always win tug-o-war, they make you look bad playing frisbee.... and unforunately, they will love you even when nobody else seems to.

Nice!Poochie.

I didn't see this on the news but........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zATogM8p3FM

There is NO such thing as a "bad breed" or a "bad dog" only bad owners!!! After thousands of years of being humans constant and most faithful companions they are still being treated with ignorant suspicion. What does it take to prove it to you? I hope you never own a dog, some peeps are simply not meant too. AS to Pitty's being portrayed poorly in the media...the orignal "Pete" from Lil Rascals is a Pitbull...Soooo if you dont get it, I suppose you never will...Please do the dog world a favour and stick to cats

Sorry lovey there is no such thing. My ex- father in law (my outlaw) is a vet and he carefully explained to me the differences in genetics and why this is an impossibility. Two DIFFERENT branches of the canine tree...I suggest you ask your vet about it.

You may be thinking of foxes? Wolves, domestic dogs and coyotes are all from the same branch of canidae and have 78 chromosomes so have no problems crossing to produce hybrids! Foxes vary in karyotpe with red fox 38 chromosomes and fennec fox 64 so not likely to cross well & if possible, likely to produce sterile offspring like crossing donkeys and horses.

hi

thanks Cy, I must admit I have always been curious about what was in them!

firefly, did ya notice the 'optional' ingredient?