But we're not letting pit bulls run rampant.

Sorry ...

This seems to be in line with the common observation that pit bulls don't bite as often as other breeds, but when they do the damage is much worse.

Ok, my mum's chihuahua's are agressive, but I can handle those. Who can handle an agreesive pit bull?

That "no altered dogs have ever fatally attacked a human" thing is fascinating. Where's that factoid reported? Other than here of course.

a pit bull is a pit bull terrier and/or an american staffordshire bull terrier. that's it. they are instantly recognizable due to their facial musculature - giant scary jaw muscles. if the dog is HALF either of these recognized AKC breeds, then it's close enough for hand grenades. these dogs were created for pit fighting with bulls, not cuddling with toddlers.

if the breed is not banned, then ownership of these breeds should require a license & training of both dog & owner. and a high school diploma.

The penalties for owning a vicious dog don't seem nearly serious enough. At least for the human involved, since they often put down the dog.

And yeah, what's a pit bull? Most "pit bulls" I know are a mix of labs or shepherds. How do they decide what a pit bull is? I already refer to my dog as a lab mix whenever I feel like I'm talking to a small-minded reactionary person.

And teach your children to be wary of all dogs, to never run screaming from a dog, and to stand still if approached by a strange dog.

Not because it's bad advice -- it's exactly right. It's just every time I hear some version of "whatever you do don't show fear -- if you do then they're certain to attack!" I get angry all over again. Because it feels like blaming the victim. Like it's the kid's fault that they're afraid of a dangerous animal charging at them with teeth bared. Dog owners seem to love dishing out this kind of advice, and it makes me seethe with hatred for them every time I hear it.

I would be all for erasing the legal distinctions between things your dog does and things you do directly -- if somebody's dog injures somebody then the dog owner is held legally responsible as if they committed the crime themselves and is liable for all damages. And, sorry to say it, I would support a "one strike and you're out" policy on the dogs involved in serious incidents.

Most of the "pit bull menace" could be taken care of with stronger laws regarding animal ownership, common sense, and better-funded animal control.

The Toronto article you linked can be dismissed because it's the only recent scientific article that doesn't show pit bulls as the most dangerous dogs. See the rebuttal of the article here.

And your Malcolm Gladwell article ends with a story about a dangerous dog and this passage:

[T]he city could easily have prevented the second attack with the right kind of generalization—a generalization based not on breed but on the known and meaningful connection between dangerous dogs and negligent owners. But that would have required someone to track down Shridev Café, and check to see whether he had bought muzzles, and someone to send the dogs to be neutered after the first attack, and an animal-control law that insured that those whose dogs attack small children forfeit their right to have a dog. It would have required, that is, a more exacting set of generalizations to be more exactingly applied. It’s always easier just to ban the breed.

It's true, we could greatly reduce dog bites if we dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars to keep tabs on every dog owner to make sure the dogs are trained, neutered, muzzled if necessary, and don't have unregistered dogs. That's not possible, though. It's a lot easier to just ban the most deadly type of dog.

So let's just ban 'em all. There would be a lot less shit to step in, too.

it's true that a lot of the behavioral issues are due to the owner, but genetics and breeding are big factors with dog behavior. remember, a lot of pitbulls are bred specifically for dog fighting, and unless you know the bloodline of your pitbull, you're asking for trouble.

i don't think breed bans will solve the problem, but spay/neuter laws help curb irresponsible breeding. and sorry, but people should really be discouraged from having pitbulls as pets. they can be sweet, loving dogs, but the danger they pose is not just media hype, it's very real.

Man, so would I. If your dog fatally mauls someone, you should be charged with manslaughter, no exceptions.

The Stranger's (or at least Dan Savage's) anti-pit bull crusade misses the biggest problem, which is that people get away with raising aggressive, violent dogs that attack people. Your dog mauls a kid? Dog gets shot, and the owner gets off with a slap on the wrist at most. That is the real problem that needs correction.

I assume you'd agree with the following:
Handgun restriction laws are based on a simplistic view of the gun violence issue and they don’t work because they don’t address the real cause of firearms fatalities: irresponsible humans.

In the same way as I support laws that prohibit carrying unlicensed concealed weapons on the street, I also would support the licensing of any dangerous breed of dog. Or any dog, period. And like firearms, I'd rather not see a dog bred specifically for violence wandering around on the street. It's fine if you're licensed and you carry it in your pocket (or dressed up as a lab).

Also, sorry, but I shouldn't have to teach my kid how to deal with YOUR violent dog. Dogs with violent tendencies have NO BUSINESS IN A DENSELY POPULATED AREA.

I don't see how we can ban a breed of dog when we don't ban guns.

THAT is a simplistic view of this issue. Yes, one factor of the equation is that there are a ton more pit bulls in America than there used to be, and yes, it does also matter that the people who are choosing to own pits are specifically wanting a big badass dog so you have backyard breeders scrambling to provide them.

But it's undeniable there is still something inherently troubling about pit bulls. These dogs were bred to latch on to living beings with those big giant crushing jaws and not let go, not even to the death. They are very very good at doing what they were bred to do, and, with the explosion of the backyard breeders, you have all kinds of nightmare breeding scenarios, producing all manner of ill-adjusted dogs with hidden triggers in their heads. Pits not only do more damage than other dogs when they attack, they have a much higher incidence of attack than other breeds, which is why people talk about breed bans.

For the record, I'm not entirely in favor of breed bans myself. But it's disingenuous to make the argument that all dogs are the same in this regard and that a pit bull attack can always be blamed on the owner of the pit - the news is filled with stunned former pit bull owners who tell tales of having handraised their dogs from pups, dog never displayed any aggressiveness anywhere to anyone at anytime, just a big old softy, really, so, no, I can't explain why I no longer have a niece/nephew/face.....

:/

Pit Bull Attacks

Almost 1200 as opposed to 400 for the most-reported. Something's going on here, and it's not the owners' lack of training their animals. To think so is naive...the animal's natural instinct to attack will win.

Eradication efforts may be needed to remove this assailant from the gene pool.

But that ignores the fact that a pit bull is capable of snapping a baseball bat in half with its powerful jaws. A pomeranian, no matter how badly mistreated, can do minimal damage, and can only kill someone if it is really really lucky.

A pit bull in the hands of an overly aggressive douche bag is inherently more dangerous than a pomeranian in the hands of an overly aggressive douche bag.

It is simple to ban pit bulls. As much as I might like to, it is much harder to ban overly aggressive douche bags.

I agree with Abby, we need a Fighting Dachshund League.

@16 for the win, though.

The traditional approach to dangerous dog legislation is to allow "one free bite," at which point the owner is warned. On second bite, the dog is killed. The traditional approach, however, patently does not apply in addressing the threats from pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. In more than two-thirds of the cases I have logged, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Children and elderly people were almost always the victims.

...

The humane community does not try to encourage the adoption of pumas in the same manner that we encourage the adoption of felis catus, because even though a puma can also be box-trained and otherwise exhibits much the same indoor behavior, it is clearly understood that accidents with a puma are frequently fatal.

For the same reason, it is sheer foolishness to encourage people to regard pit bull terriers and Rottweilers as just dogs like any other, no matter how much they may behave like other dogs under ordinary circumstances.

Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. 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.

If your neighbor's dachshund ever snaps, your son can probably take him. If he sweet pit bull snaps, which they do, your son may not survive the attack.

Here's the link: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf (courtesy of Buffalo Bill, above).

Yikes.

That's what every single news account quotes the owner of a killer dog saying. "It was the sweetest dog..." Tell that to their victims. I'm sure it'll make them feel better.

(Lancaster, PA) -- A local woman has died after her face was eaten by her pet dog, a Pomeranian. The victim's identity has not been released by law enforcement pending notification of her family, who are believed to be traveling abroad.

The woman had not reported to work at the Lancaster County Waste Water Treatment Facility and co-workers called police. Upon arriving at her home, police discovered the victim in a La-Z-Boy reclining chair in her living room without a face.

"The dog had face on its face," said Police Inspector Daniel Unzivilisiert. "If she was smiling or crying, we would not be able to know."

This marks the third recent attack by Pomeranians in Lancaster within six months.

In February, a Pomeranian was responsible for the deaths of 36 people when the bitch chewed through a local theater's fire alarm power cord and exploded into flames, resulting in the tragic destruction of the theater and attendant loss of life.

More recently, three Pomeranians were seen leaving the home of Alois Poe, who was later found to have been pushed into his garbage disposal. Investigators classify the case as at a dead end.

-- 30 --

And teach your children to be wary of all dogs, to never run screaming from a dog, and to stand still if approached by a strange dog.

The thought that my 5 year old and my 7 year old should be taught not to run in the face of a dangerous, powerful animal that is capable of killing them illustrates precisely why your stats and your logic can't win this argument.

I grew up in a neighborhood full of aggressive dogs, was bit by a german shepherd and a great dane, and absolutely hated all big dogs when I was a kid. Back then, I was a Christian, and one question I always asked God was why fellow Christians thought it was OK to own dogs that terrorized children.

It's not OK.

Breed does have something to do with temperament. And anecdotes about breeds are just that... so I'll share my two: a Dalmatian that bit off my left ear when I was 16. And an Akita that clamped down on my left arm when I was 35, severing the nerve to my thumb.

Both were unprovoked, at the dog's home (I was eating dinner and enjoying a mighty fine red wine when the Akita took a disliking to my arm!)

In both cases, the dog owners blamed me and not their beloved pets, enough to whisk their dogs away the next morning, and beg me not to report it to the county animal control officers. As it turns out, the Akita had even previously attacked the 12 year old girl who vacation-sat her, I later found out.

So I say fuck dog owners. They're irrational, and I now ask anyone with a dog to restrain it when I pay a visit--and when I see one of them with their offleash dog at places like Green Lake or the Arboretum, I tell them flat out to restrain their beast.

They may be your best friend, but they're not mine. Don't impose them on me.

It's like telling a rape victim to "just get over it--at least you weren't murdered."

It's a very personal violation when someone's 100 pound animal mauls you. No, it's not rape, but it's definitely not a pinprick either.

Yes!!, You do have to teach your kids not to run at a dog. Little kids scare or annoy my dog (so do puppies; also they annoy the shit out of me).

One time a little girl did run up to her, while I was holding her leash but not paying attention to the girl. My dog barked a warning, and stopped the little girl. Then her mom used the moment to teach the child to not scare dogs, and to ask if they can pet them.

It was all fine, and if the girl had hit my dog, and my dog bit her, I'm sure I'd still have put the dog down. FTR, she's never bitten anyone since I've owned her.

No matter how responsible I am, and how nice my dog is, children need to be taught how to behave around them.

for realz?!

The advice Amy gives for teaching children is similar to the advice you give to people about how to deal with BEARS or COUGARS, which are, you know, WILD ANIMALS. If anything, that advice merely advances the point that dogs are very dangerous and should be tightly controlled.

Breed bans aren't perfect by any means, but ignoring the fact that certain types of dogs have killing power closer to that of a cougar is ludicrous, as is assuming that because you've trained your dog so well, it'll never happen to you. The risks can be mitigated, but not eliminated. As others have pointed out, smaller dogs with less powerful jaws simply present a less serious risk to begin with.

Dogs of all breeds have the potential to go nuts and attack humans. It's certainly relevant whether those attacks are more or less likely to kill someone. Even people who support private gun ownership probably don't support private cluster-bomb ownership.