Pit Bull Pamphlet!

Originally Posted by southern_girl09

That was one of the worst comments I have heard. Maybe you did bad research but Cocker Spaniels and Labs have bitten more people than pit bulls. Not to mention, "Pit Bull mixes" are usually Lab Mixes and lots of other breeds.

I am talking about fatalities, not simple dog bites. From what I read pit bulls or pit bull mixes killed more people than any other breed or mix.

[pitbulliest]

If someone abused me, neglected me, exploited me, and taught me to attack..I'd probably kill a few people too..



Stupid owners...punish the deed, not the breed!

Originally Posted by pitbulliest

If someone abused me, neglected me, exploited me, and taught me to attack..I'd probably kill a few people too..



Stupid owners...punish the deed, not the breed!

I agree 100%!

[bubbatd]

I know that you who own and have done well by your babies, love your pitties and mixed pitts. I personally felt ( and feel) I could never take one on, just because of some of the heartache stories. Unfortunately , here in Indy, the only ones I see are chained or being walked in the " Hood ". I saw one running loose the other day without a collar and in traffic. Normally, Grammy would stop and put the dog in her 4X4 ..... but she couldn't take the chance. It's sad.

Originally Posted by bubbatd

I know that you who own and have done well by your babies, love your pitties and mixed pitts. I personally felt ( and feel) I could never take one on, just because of some of the heartache stories. Unfortunately , here in Indy, the only ones I see are chained or being walked in the " Hood ". I saw one running loose the other day without a collar and in traffic. Normally, Grammy would stop and put the dog in her 4X4 ..... but she couldn't take the chance. It's sad.

Way too many irresponsible people own pit bulls. Gang members and drug dealers own them because they want to look macho. Sad but true.

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by rottiegirl

I have done some research on fatal dog attacks. The united states humane society did their own research from 1979 to 1996 on the breeds who killed the most people. between that time frame 60 people were killed by pit bulls, 29 from rotties, 19 from GSD, 14 from huskies, 12 from alaskan malamutes, 8 from dobermans, 8 from chow chows, 6 from great danes, 4 from st. bernards, and 4 from akitas. The top mixed breed dog who killed the most people was the wolf hybrid fallowed by the pit bull mix's. As you can see, there is good reason why pit bulls have been banned. I have also read other documents and the pit bull is always number one. Due to bad breeders.

You stats are flawed....Here is why, First: There are WAY more Pit Bulls in Urban areas. (site of most fatal attacks) Because of the sheer number of them, of course they would account for more fatalities. Please don't quote AKC numbers, if you drive through the inner cities you will find Pit Bulls out number the next closest (Rotts) by at least 5 to 1 if not more.

Let me give you an example of what I am saying. If there are 1000 Pit Bulls in a city and 100 Chows in the same city you would assume that Pit Bulls should have 10times as many attacks right? To really find out how dangerous a dog is you must take its total number into consideration. Pit Bulls often account for far fewer attacks if you consider the attacks/population ratio.

Second: Another flaw is that many dogs are missed labeled as "Pitbulls". Over 20 breeds are often misidentified as Pit Bulls.

See link http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Because some Labs are so stocky they have even mistaken Labs as Pit Bulls.
Who are the people who are calling the dog a Pit Bull? A Vet...No Breeder? No Hysterical Cat owner? Yep Reporter looking for Headlines? yep Over Worked Under informed Cop? Yep....You get the idea.

Originally Posted by Amstaffer

You stats are flawed....Here is why, First: There are WAY more Pit Bulls in Urban areas. (site of most fatal attacks) Because of the sheer number of them, of course they would account for more fatalities. Please don't quote AKC numbers, if you drive through the inner cities you will find Pit Bulls out number the next closest (Rotts) by at least 5 to 1 if not more.

Let me give you an example of what I am saying. If there are 1000 Pit Bulls in a city and 100 Chows in the same city you would assume that Pit Bulls should have 10times as many attacks right? To really find out how dangerous a dog is you must take its total number into consideration. Pit Bulls often account for far fewer attacks if you consider the attacks/population ratio.

Second: Another flaw is that many dogs are missed labeled as "Pitbulls". Over 20 breeds are often misidentified as Pit Bulls.

See link http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Because some Labs are so stocky they have even mistaken Labs as Pit Bulls.
Who are the people who are calling the dog a Pit Bull? A Vet...No Breeder? No Hysterical Cat owner? Yep Reporter looking for Headlines? yep Over Worked Under informed Cop? Yep....You get the idea.

I am not talking about fatalities in a certain city. I am talking about fatalities in the whole U.S. Pit bulls are not even on the top ten list of the most popular breeds. I agree that pits can and are mistaken for other breeds and mixes. but I am sure that most dog owners know the breed of their own dogs.

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by rottiegirl

I am not talking about fatalities in a certain city. I am talking about fatalities in the whole U.S. Pit bulls are not even on the top ten list of the most popular breeds. I agree that pits can and are mistaken for other breeds and mixes. but I am sure that most dog owners know the breed of their own dogs.

I used a city as an example. Stats can be very misleading if you take them out of context. Most dog caused deaths are in the city and Pit bulls are the number one breed in the city....its not even close. You can't just quote a simple stat like that without considering all the variables. In the city Pit bulls account for the most deaths because they are the most popular dog, therefore simple logic will tell you they should. I would bet they don't account for as many as their total population would mathmaticly imply. When you consider the total number of deaths by one breed you first must consider the following. Total number of Dogs (Breed "X") to total number of deaths cause by breed X. That will give you a ratio number. Then compare that to the Total number of Dogs (breed "Y") to total number of deaths cause by breed Y, that will give you another ratio number. Compare the to ratios to see which is actually more "Deadly".

Example: Chicago has 1000 pit bulls (actually they have a lot more) and the total human deaths by them is 10. (That is a very high ratio but it makes for easy math)1000/10 = 100. .01 would be an indicator that means nothing until you compare it to another breed. In that same fictional Chicago you could have 25 Chows that caused 4 deaths. 25/4= .16 If you look at the stats in this way (more correct way) you see the Pit Bull would be less dangerous.

You might say well there isn't that many more pitbulls, in the stats you mention it was 60 Pit bull to 8 chows deaths. I would bet the proverbial farm that the population ratios of the Pitbull to Chow is way higher than 60 to 8. I am not slamming chows here I am just using your stats.

In stats like you mention you must consider population ratios or your logic, theory and whole arguement is based on a sinking foundation.

Another thing to consider is the culture of an area where the most deaths take place. Most of the places where these death take place you have poor and uneducated people who value strength and aggression over compassion and empathy. In these areas you find that Pit Bulls have become popular since the drug explosion of the 80s. People in these areas (I live in one) are looking for a strong medium sized dog that they can use to defend themselves against the real threat from other humans. Training and good breeding are also foriegn ideas to this culture.

Culture of humans has way more to do with Dog/Human killings than the breed. Just like gun deaths. Why does the USA have more gun deaths than anyother industrialized country? Its in our culture.

If you go to Ireland you have the Irish Staffordshire Terrier that is very similar to the Amstaff/Pitbull in the USA in size and temperment. Because of the culture of the humans there you don't have fatal attack...or many attack period.

There is another poster here name BowBowee (sp?) that live in the Phillipenes (sp?) and they don't have the problems the US has why?


It is not the breed but several other variables...all of which are human.

[pitbulliest]

Originally Posted by rottiegirl

I am talking about fatalities in the whole U.S. Pit bulls are not even on the top ten list of the most popular breeds. I agree that pits can and are mistaken for other breeds and mixes. but I am sure that most dog owners know the breed of their own dogs.

ERRrrrRRRTtTTTtt... WRONG!
Most dog owners have no CLUE what kind of dog they have...if you pick up a mutt from a shelter, its usually already misidentified to the point of patheticness...trust me, I work at the central humane society down here...gawd there is sooo much room for error its comical!

Second of all, stats are flawed..they always have been, they always will be...stats are absolutely pointless in terms of determining whether or not a particular breed is responsible for more attacks/fatalities/blah blah blah..why? Because WAY TOO MANY other aspects/facts/background information is dumped in the garbage, and misidentification is ever so present...

Third of all, you said that pits are not even on the top ten list of the most popular breeds in the states? Where are you getting that info from? ANd PLEASE for the love of the lord, do NOT say the UKC or the AKC...because those aren't even considered "stats"....do you even know how they collect their data? According to registered dogs..that's how...no wonder goldens and labs are considered the most popular breeds...

Do you expect thugs/gangsters/backyard breeders/other junk of society to register their dogs or for the UKC/AKC to have any record of them? Pffft..hell no...

Just look down the street and you won't have to look any further on which breed is the most popular, the most abused, the most neglected, the most exploited, and of course, the most publicized by the ever so wonderful media...

I remember when I was about six years old my grandmother had a friend who bred APBTs and decided to get my one. My mom went crazy when we brought my puppy home saying that they were dangerous and crazy ans stuff. That was only because of the misconception of the pit bull. She turned out to be the sweetest dog EVER. I loved her so much. It's a shame what people do to their dogs to make them behave in such a negative, mean manner. I used to live in Detroit and there were alot of dog fighters. We used to live next to "thugs" who had pitts they fought. It was horrible what they did to their dogs. It's 100% the owners to turn their dogs out to be mean. I think some owners need to be banned from public not the breed.