bigkahuna;1176518 wrote:Notice in that report that pitt bulls also have the highest % of the population? lol.

Edit: Forgot to mention that I guess LJ was wrong.

To Whom It May Concern:
Attached, as requested, please find a copy of the report titled “ Breeds of dogs involved
in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998” and published in the
September 15, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
In your review of this report, please be cognizant of the following:
• This study was NOT conducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association,
but by individual investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Humane Society of the United States, and the American
Veterinary Medical Association. The report underwent the standard review
process required for publication of scientific reports published in the Journal of the
AVMA.
• In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data contained
within this report CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog
bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be
more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report). To
obtain such risk information it would be necessary to know the numbers of each
breed currently residing in the United States. Such information is not available.
• Data in this report indicate that the number of dogs of a given breed associated
with fatal human attacks varies over time, further suggesting that such data should
not be used to support the inherent “dangerousness” of any particular breed.
More than 25 breeds have been involved in fatal human attacks over the 20-year
period summarized in this report.
• Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning
dangerous dogs.
• Strategies that can be used in an effort to prevent dog bites include enforcement
of generic, non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws, with an emphasis on
chronically irresponsible owners; enforcement of animal control ordinances such
as leash laws; prohibition of dog fighting; encouraging neutering; and schoolbased
and adult education programs that teach pet selection strategies, pet care
and responsibility, and bite prevention.

LJ;1176549 wrote:If you want to try to be an ass and try to correct people, maybe I should point out that "Pit Bull" is a single very specific breed and "bullys" or "bull terriers" is the TYPE of dog that you all are arguing against. Notice I keep referring to them as "bullys"? There is a reason for that.

sportchampps;1176968 wrote:Isadore do your stats take into account dogs that had bad owners and were not properly trained. Of course they do. Show me some stats that show a professionally trained pit bull with educated caring owners are any more likly to bite then any other dog that is trained and taken care of. You can't that's why a lot of cities have recently taken pits off of the vicious dogs list. Look at ohio house bill 79/55 if says no breed should be con sired viscous only dogs that commit acts are.

isadore;1176979 wrote:No what I looked at was not the vote but the article in the Lima News about the baby in a swing torn apart by a Pit Bull after those idiots repealed that law. Gosh i guess all the other dogs out there have been professionally trained and have educated, caring owners. That must be why they don't kill like Pits. Is there any law requiring all this special preparation for pit owners, No there isn't. And since there isn't why should we let these killers among us.

bigkahuna;1176985 wrote:I read a story about a pomeranian killing a 6 month old baby laying on the couch. WATCH OUT for those poms!

Also, thanks for not answering my question about how many victims in your stats were children left unattended with the animal vs. being attended to. How many pit bulls attacked a child while the child was watching tv or eating dinner with their parents?

sportchampps;1176968 wrote:Isadore do your stats take into account dogs that had bad owners and were not properly trained. Of course they do. Show me some stats that show a professionally trained pit bull with educated caring owners are any more likly to bite then any other dog that is trained and taken care of. You can't that's why a lot of cities have recently taken pits off of the vicious dogs list. Look at ohio house bill 79/55 if says no breed should be con sired viscous only dogs that commit acts are.

bigkahuna;1176985 wrote:I read a story about a pomeranian killing a 6 month old baby laying on the couch. WATCH OUT for those poms!

bigkahuna;1176985 wrote:Also, thanks for not answering my question about how many victims in your stats were children left unattended with the animal vs. being attended to. How many pit bulls attacked a child while the child was watching tv or eating dinner with their parents?

sportchampps;1177077 wrote: Since most murders are committed by African Americans should we just ban them from society as well.

WebFire;1177023 wrote: Don't need to answer it. I don't know why you are focused on unattended children when more than double the deaths were ADULTS! Adults don't sit in baby swings unattended. So do you still blame their parents?

dwccrew;1177092 wrote:That's because their owners let them run loose.

isadore;1177110 wrote:All you have to do is look at the statistics. It is not a matter of perception but of fact. Pitt Bull numbers overwhelm those of any other type of dog for killing humans. The numbers for any other species pales before the Pitts. It takes the totals of the next three highest dogs to match the deadly pits.
But the excuses continue. If they only had received special training, if their owners had only been saintly, if they had only been spayed or neutered. Blah , blah, blah, they are killers.

sportchampps;1177077 wrote:You hear about more pit bulls killing people bc they are an attractive breed for neglectful owners.

In Ohio over the last seven years, 80 percent of the 57 dogs that killed or seriously injured people were pit bulls, according to media reports compiled by Animal People newspaper editor Merritt Clifton.

WebFire;1178879 wrote:That's all fine and good. But there are so many breeds where a bad owner does not equal death and mauling.

WebFire;1178879 wrote:That's all fine and good. But there are so many breeds where a bad owner does not equal death and mauling.