Very sorry to hear about this incident. I hope that both Henry and your wife recover quickly from their wounds. I'm sure that their emotional wounds won't easily be healed, if ever. Such useless and criminal incidents take more of a toll than most may think. And as for how you handled this occurance, my hats off to you. You're a better man than I (re: smarter).
I've read a few posts responding to your IP and it made me reflect a bit on how differently we can all feel about such things. While I'm firmly in the any dog can exhibit such behavior camp, I'm just as firmly embedded in the something should be done to minimize such occurances in regards to dogs which continually terrorize, maim and kill people. And IMHO.....statisticians punching #'s, attaining and presenting results are much more likely to be objective than those more emotionally involved. That would seem to make sense to me, anyway. What would they have to gain by fabricating or lying about a specific breed and their involvement in such attacks as opposed to someone emotionally tied in for their own reasons......?
I'd venture a guess that many here (if not most), believe that we, as a nation under siege and attack from several other known countries, should be able to greatly enhance and enforce security and other restrictions concerning the crossing of borders into the US, be it by air, land or sea........better known as "profiling". Assuming that I'm correct in the premise that many of us are supportive of such a change, I can't understand why there are those that can't fathom the need to do the same with specific breeds of dogs?
The recent push and desire by many of us to establish profiling as another form of security is based on trying to further secure the safety and well being of our citizens. We know that certain people (breeds, for this purpose) from certain areas are MUCH more apt to do us harm given the opportunity. And as has been the case 100% of the time, those that survived such attempts have vowed to attempt the same carnage if given the opportunity again. How many cases of people being maimed or killed by the #1, #2 or #3 breeds involved in such incidents were first time offenders? From articles that I've read, not many.
I believe that there will come a time when certain breeds of dogs will be illegal to own except by those who need to use them for security/government reasons. I look forward to that time and I say this as a lifelong dog owner. Until that time however, it would seem reasonable to require owners of the biggest (statistically speaking) offenders to carry insurance policies that take into consideration these dogs capabilities and the owners steadfastness to overlook them. I believe that some states and/or insurance companies already do this or perhaps have tried to do this, if not, they should and I expect that it's only a matter of time, albeit, after a few more maimings and deaths.
As to where to draw the line and which breeds should be scrutinized the most......those breeds that have obviously shown the most propensity for such attacks and those that have caused the most devastation to people as well as other pets. I would assume that any state, city or county council would likely defer to and eventually choose to use a statiticians results rather than an emotional owner's pleas in regards to one of those breeds being targeted.
We classify sex offenders as Level 1,2 or 3's. We do this to try to keep to public as safe as possible and more informed. We currently only somewhat profile travelers attempting to enter our country and I expect that full-on profiling will necessarily become a larger and more important piece of how we will do business in the very near future.....hopefully. And we will likely embrace profiling quickly as yet another step to help ensure that we, as US citizens, don't fall victim to our own PC nightmare that our current administration has allowed and perhaps, promoted.
If we are so concerned about the safety of us and ours and we take steps in many other ways to that end, it would seem to follow that we should be able to feel safe and secure enough to enjoy daily, family activities without the potential of being maimed or killed by someone else's dog.
The deadliest dogs Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:
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.
Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."
Actually if we think back hard enough some of us might remember news of a baby that was actually killed by a very small dog. I think it was a pom... pomeranian, or how ever you spell that.
It was a small lap dog anyways, and it was a very small baby, like 6 months or younger.
So yeah, chit can happen with any breed.
But it happens more with pits & rots than any other breed.
Of course it's always "I just can't believe it, he's never done anything like this before" with any dog. But Pit owners find themselves in this position more than anyone else.(disbelief)
statisticians punching #'s, attaining and presenting results are much more likely to be objective than those more emotionally involved. That would seem to make sense to me, anyway. What would they have to gain by fabricating or lying about a specific breed and their involvement in such attacks as opposed to someone emotionally tied in for their own reasons......?
At first glance that seems a reasonable conclusion, but it is in fact incorrect. Raw stats, in the absence of consideration of relevant factors by someone deeply knowledgeable about the subject, often lead to radically incorrect conclusions.
For example, it might seem logical to conclude that umbrellas being unfolded cause rain to fall, since I observe that when I count high numbers of unfolded umbrellas on any major street in the nation, rain is generally falling at that time. This would be an incorrect conclusion, however, because it fails to more deeply analyze the relevant factors surrounding the relationship.
Some factors entirely ignored in these raw-stats-based conclusions regarding American (Pit) Bull Terriers (APBT) are such as the following: What percentage of all APBTs in the United States are currently in, or have lived in, abusive, neglectful, or dysfunctional conditions? What effect could this factor have on the available statistics? How many APBTs are there in the United States compared to other large and powerful breeds of dog like, for example, Fila Brasileiro, and what effect does this factor have on the total number dog bite statistic? Is there a media preference for stories relating to APBTs causing harm vs other breeds causing harm, due to the perception that such stories draw more public interest? What effect does this have on available data? When "Pitbull" stats are compiled, are only pure bred dogs considered, or are all APBT admixtures included, or perhaps even dogs that someone thought "looked like" a "Pitbull?" Are multiple breeds lumped into the fictional category of "Pitbull" (There is no dog breed by that name registered by any breed club) for the purpose of compiling dog bite statistics? Is the same standard used for compiling statistics on, for example, German Shepherds? Are APBTs (perhaps for sociological reasons connected with the economic class that tends to own them) statistically more likely than other powerful breeds to live their lives on a chain in the yard, rather than in a family setting with normal socialization? What effect does maintaining a dog on an chain in the yard have on propensity to bite?
See what I mean? Raw numbers are entirely worthless without a deeper knowledge and consideration of all relevant factors.
A cancer lover/owner (as if): "Woe, hold on doc, I don't like the way you are talking about cancer. These raw facts are entirely worthless without a deeper knowledge and consideration of all relevant factors."
The dogs aren't the problem, the owners are the problem.
Phil
I find it very telling that the picture they use to illustrate the American (Pit) Bull Terrier (upper right hand corner) at this site is actually not an American (Pit) Bull Terrier. It's an American Bulldog. This is part of the problem. The identifier "Pitbull," for the purpose of these statistics, amounts to all dogs that, to a non-expert observer, "look like" a "Pitbull."
Rather than just post a graph, why not post the statistics the graph is trying to point out???
There were a total of 32 fatal attacks. Yes 44% of those were by pit-bulls. 75% of those were on the owners property. Some 63% involved children. Nearly 40% involved multiple dogs. and 19% involved dogs that were chained...
We had a death of a 3 year old boy up in Apple Valley last week by a pit-bull... The owner left his child out side playing with the dog while he went inside?????????
Chained at the time. Says nothing about the usual situation of the dogs who were not on a chain when they attacked someone, i.e., were the other dogs usually chained, but got loose? Chaining "Pitbulls" is considered cool in the socioeconomic classes that tend (in the greatest numbers) to own them.
Chaining, in case you weren't aware, is an ancient method for conditioning dogs to become people-aggressive. This method was written about in the ancient world as the preferred method for making dogs into effective guard dogs (released at night to roam the interior of walled-in estates till their keepers put them back on the chain in the morning), i.e., dogs that will attack anyone other than their handlers.
Points well taken.......as I said earlier, not sure where the line (breed) should be drawn, but that would be up to those most familiar with the #'s (attacks, maimings, deaths due to....) come into play.
Differentiating between breeds and their subtle or not so subtle differences.......not easy. Someone can do this and would be willing to do so, not I. These differences, be they pronounced or not, won't make a difference to any victims nor their families.
As an aside, but pertinent IMHO.............Since retiring from LE several years ago, I was obviously personally aware of who were the sex offenders in our community. I knew their MO's and faces. My neighbor below me was having his house painted a couple summers back and while walking my dog in my backyard (which adjoins his backyard), I saw all 3 of the painters working on his fence. I recognized one as being a sex offender (SO). This neighbor has a young son and young twin daughters. I called him and told him of the situation and he denied that any of the painters went by either that first or last name. I told him that I wasn't guessing about my recollection of this person and after my neighbor made a call to these painters boss, the SO painter never returned to work at this site after lunch. He had given a false name to his boss and admitted to that after some more in-depth questioning.
My point being............I would not have cared so much as my kids are grown and I don't mind SO's finding employment that enhances opportunities to turn their own lives around (as long as it doesn't put others at risk). But knowing that this particular individual was an SO and that he obviously had standing orders not to be around children, my decision to disclose this info to my neighbor was a no-brainer. I knew him to be a Level III SO, but had he been a Level I SO, it would not have made any difference to me. An SO is an SO is an SO. So the level of his SO status had no bearing whatsoever on how I perceived him nor how I dealt with him. I fully understood the potential of this person to harm others and as "stats" prove out, LIKELY to once again harm others........ala....certain breeds of dogs.
His pedigree, if you will, made no difference. I placed him in that catagory of "a threat to society". I know he was part Hipsanic, but how much I don't know.......didn't care. Ala....was it a full APBT or not. Was it a Fila Brasileiro or not? Was the Ft. Hood shrink tied up in his yard too long? Was the "underwear bomber" normally socialized? I'd say this latter fella WAS normally socialized, at least, given his roots and "breed". Socialzation doesn't just take place between the ages of 0 and 5 years of age. It's a continual process. Seems it didn't take much to get this fella to revert back to his roots.
What's in us will always be there, whether masked for a short duration or forever. But more often than not, I contend, as does cream, what we are truly about almost always rises to the top.
Breeds of dogs, whether "pure bred dogs" or not and "breeds" of people.......not really so different, sans one major difference.
Humans have the ability to make good decisions at all times with respect to how their decisions and/or choices might impact others lives........quite literally. That people owning such dogs obviously must have considered the potentially, dire outcomes of owning such an animal, but then still choose to place others in harms way in spite of these very real possibilities.........disconcerting, at best.
O.K. I'm in late on this. Sam sorry for your wife and pup. I have owned dogs all of my life I will not try to change anyones mind about any dog breed. Those of you who feel that certain breeds are all bad should not own them. Over the last 50+ years I have owned Pits, Rots, Akti, Boxer, English Bull, Mutts. I have never had a dog of mine bite. I have put dogs down due to bad temperment two that were not able to be socilized with other dog (always ready to fight). I will not have a dog I'm not able to control. My opinion is it is the responsibilty of the owner to know the animal and its temperment. I currently have a pit and a corgie my pit is one of the best dogs I'v owend he it alterd and is a good family pet he plays well with all other dogs male and female including the 3lb mutt next door and my son's male spanial.My point is I don't feel it is reasonable or intelligent to assume all of any breed are bad or good it's a dog by dog base.
My wife and oldest daughter have conspired (conspired I tell you!) to get a little dog. They already tried once- a Daschhound blend that was a sweet little dude but an unrepentant goat and chicken-chaser so he had to go back to the pound...
Anyway they ALMOST brought home a pug last week. It was cheap and had a good personality, they say. But it was shaved clean due to mange and was just a puppy.
So I almost owned a shaved, mangy, pug puppy. How cool is that?
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dogsbite.org/img/2009-fatality-chart.gif)
