Man found guilty of murder because his dogs killed a woman.. Guess the breed

not true at all, my dog, Old English mastiff, has one of the most powerful bit of a dog.. bite is determined by head size...

You mad because white people have managed to corner the market on rednecks?

I looked at several sources, not one mentioned anything about head size being a factor in measuring jaw pressure in a dog bite. I think every source I looked at had different findings and I did see one that listed the mastiff #2. My point was that the Rottweiler and German Shepherd are usually listed in the top 5 and are #2 and #3 in fatalities, but they pale in comparison to the Pit in number of attack deaths.

If you do a little research, you'll find that site/link you posted actually isn't legit. It was started by someone who got bit by what *might* or might not have been a Pit. Their stats are only culled from media reports of such attacks, which, if we consider media bias for pit bull stories (reporters listening to their police scanner apparently ignoring labrador, chow-chow and poodle incidents), means they're completely irrelevant.

According to the American Temperament Test Society, Pit Bulls are among the coolest characters in the dog world, and rate better than Collies and Retrievers and Cocckers and so on. It's part of the reason they're so popular for zootherapy, helping veterans, elderly people and children who are traumatized or with terminal conditions, as well as search & rescue and first response animals.

Pitbulls aren't nasty, aggressive dogs unless you make them that way.

:D

I actually came in here to say that this is a pretty rare occurrence and this is easily something that can be taken out of context but then you came in here with your 'do a little research' bullshit and pissed all over anyones argument for owning one... bravo.

They are naturally nasty and aggressive and they aren't screened for violence or anything else which is why they will never be accepted as a breed in the AKC. You have to train them not to be violent, just as you would most dogs. The difference is THEY ARE STRONG AND FUCKING DANGEROUS compared to ANY BREED. Yes, even the evil terrible chow chow, and the ominous labrador retriever that is clearly killing more people than rabid alligators according to your cherry picked stats..

You shouldn't be advising anyone on this subject, you clearly don't know dogs at all.

They ARE disproportionately represented. The study referred to took into account MEDIA reports of attacks/fatalities, which can be easily shown to be non-representative and sensationalistic.

All the stats or whatever you're referring to probably relate back to the CDC report, which they admit are based solely on media reports.

They obviously don't refer to actual facts of the National Canine Research Council: http://bslnews.files.wordpress.com/2...ies-report.pdf

My dog hasn't shown "extremely aggressive behaviour", only typical breed behaviour. Most dogs are aggressive towards some species, and in canines it's often a hierarchical reaction towards other canines.

Your thing that Pits "can be gentle and pleasant with adults and kids for a long period of time, but it just takes that one time for them to flip out and wreak havoc" is completely contradicted by facts. The same story used to be told about Dobermans - I don't know how old you are, but before the whole Pitbull craze there was an anti-Doberman thing, about 'brain-swell' and sudden-snap aggressive madness occurrences. Which were, as is now known, pure dog-poop.

Dig deeper.

I actually read that pits often score better on the temperament chart than many other dogs. The number 1 biting dog is actually the dachshund. The difference is the amount of damage the bite can do.

Here is a study done by the CDC that culls data from 1979-1996. They admit that in some cases (roughly 25%) the type of dog that kills a person is not identified by breed for a number of reasons (typically because the dog was not captured or the attack was not witnessed). However, the study shows that of those that are identified, Pits are still #1 far and away with Rotts coming in second with about half as many fatalities.

Can some pits be great dogs? Absolutely. I grew up next door to a family that had one and she was one of the warmest, sweetest dogs I have ever known. Meanwhile, a friend of mine's aunt as a dachshund that has bitten me every time I have gone over to her house and she just laughs it off and thinks it funny. Does the owner and the training have a lot to do with it? Sure. None of that changes the fact that more people are killed by pit bulls than any other dog breed.

Personally I would never own a pit especially if I had kids or had friends with kids that are around. They are powerhouse animals that are capable of doing serious damage if they decide to.

My "do a little research" suggestion was the furthest thing from bullshit. Arguments based on popular bias aren't arguments.

Pitbulls aren't "naturally nasty" and aren't inherently aggressive. No dog is. The AKC doesn't recognize the term "pitbull" but recognizes most pit-bull terrier breeds if they aren't mixed, which most dogs we know as "pitbulls" are.

Dogs just have to be trained, educated, raised as loving members of a family - human or otherwise. They don't need to be trained or taught OUT of being aggressive. They're usually "trained" INTO being nasty.

As with most situations, the humans are the determining factor.

Take a read: http://bslnews.files.wordpress.com/2...lities-ncr.pdf

:D

If you read a little further into that report, the CDC admits their "study" is based on media reports only.

Media loves the word "pitbull" as much as they used to love the word "doberman" - however they aren't a sound data source for the conclusion that Pits are more deadly or crazy or aggressive than other breeds...

:D

The study actually says in it that they use multiple sources. Media reports are one of the sources. Data collected from the Humane Society is another source.

I have never said that the pits are more aggressive than other dogs or that they are crazy. To me the information, while still somewhat flawed (in some cases they can't identify the dog and in others they can't identify the dog breed. There is also questions on how to classify "mutts" that attack) it seems pretty clear to me that pitbull-type does are responsible for more deaths.

I realize I'm not going to change your mind and in the end, when you think about it, there are only about 10-20 people per year in this country killed by dogs which is a tiny amount when you consider how many dogs are out there, but if it were me I would never own a pitbull. I prefer pets that can't rip my arm off if one day they decide to.

Well I'm still in the open about which breeds are responsible for the most attacks, though if you want to mash them all into the "pitbull-type" category you just might be right...

You may "change my mind" seeing as my research has been most cursory, and empirically my experience is obviously related to my own big goonie doof-doof (Nero, in case you're wondering), and I do bow to the gods of science, reality and facts.

But never underestimate your beast:



:D

because pitbulls are like that, it is not a stereotype...one of the most territorial and agressive dog

Damn, that's so sad...... totally unnecessary loss of life, think about what that woman's family must have gone through.

Please. You look just like one of those macho dudes the post above your talks about. Grow a dick man, no need for props!

Pitbulls are great dogs. I've had a few. Never bit me pissed off once. Again, they have a higher level of lethality than say a chihuahua or a cocker spaniel.

A chihuahua bites you and you put some neosporin on it. A pit bites you and you will very likely be hospital bound.

They get freaked out sometimes. They make mistakes and misinterpret shit, you know because they don't speak the language.

Pits, bull terriers, Rottweilers, Chows , Ridgebacks, all are great dogs but are very capable of fucking somebody up in a serious way.