Al -

Sadly I think you are right, but my personal issue with BSL is it targets the wrong source. It also sets a bad president for any dog that a politician decides to make a platform out of. Here is a clip I got from a Pit forum, I am pursuing the source as it was not published. Once these folks feel they have eliminated the Pit problem and do it successfully by BSL what's to prevent them from moving on down the list of some politicians view of aggressive dogs. I FEEL these folks wont be happy until we all are forced to own ankle biters, thus my STRONG personal opposition to the methodology of BSL....it simply won't eliminate the problem and it sets other breeds of dogs up to fall next..a domino effect:

Legislators have taken aim at specific breeds, saying they're not pets, but "loaded weapons," and "ticking time bombs." During the San Francisco trial, the presa Canario breed was called "a pit bull on steroids."

Pit Bulls
The AVMA study concluded that "pit-bull type dogs" were involved in approximately a third of the fatal encounters. Rottweilers were responsible for half. Breeds on the "aggressive" list included pit bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Siberian Huskies, Malamutes, Bull Terriers, Bulldogs, wolf-dog hybrids, Chow-Chows and Great Danes.

Val

Al,

Hello. There are a couple of problems associated with believing "pit bulls" are responsible for more human attacks than any other breed.

One is that the CDC statistics which indicate they are responsible for a thrid of all DBRF's is inaccurate because, they're listed as "pit bull type" dogs, which can include over 25 breeds that share similar physical characteristics. This label allows a single breed to be unfairly credited with bites perpetrated by other breeds.

The media reports on "pit bull" attacks more often than not, fail to provide background information(example: "The dog responsinble was registered as an APBT by the UKC/ABDA") or photos of the dogs as identification. The few times this type of information has arisen, the dogs were shown to be of other breeds, like with the Diane Whipple mauling that I already mentioned.

My question is why is it considered so bad to take a picture of a child and dog together, in close quarters? A stable dog should be capable of interacting safely with children, shouldnt they?

I don't think people should pass judgement on a breeder, based solely on 1 family photograph.

This is an interesting article.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/hype.htm

 Quote:

Al -

Sadly I think you are right, but my personal issue with BSL is it targets the wrong source. It also sets a bad president for any dog that a politician decides to make a platform out of. Here is a clip I got from a Pit forum, I am pursuing the source as it was not published. Once these folks feel they have eliminated the Pit problem and do it successfully by BSL what's to prevent them from moving on down the list of some politicians view of aggressive dogs. I FEEL these folks wont be happy until we all are forced to own ankle biters, thus my STRONG personal opposition to the methodology of BSL....it simply won't eliminate the problem and it sets other breeds of dogs up to fall next..a domino effect:

APBT's have been banned in Dade County(Miami) for a very long time, and it has prevented responsible people from owning them. The problem though is that the bad guys still have APBT's in Dade county, and still do horrible things to them. BSL has not eliminated the problem.

 Quote:

The horror stories may get old, but they happen so often that it keeps them fresh in the public eye.

A firm and uncompromising stand against bad pitbull owners and breeders would be more effective, but that won't happen.
Hence BSL.

I totally agree with you Will about going after the breeders and owners that have abused and continue to abuse this breed. I don't know why it would take an act of God to change the law. It's seems pretty simple doesn't it? I for one would like to see breeder and seller specific legislation. REAL laws aimed at protecting the public from unscrupulous breeders and kennels. Look at the numbers of people being sold washed out working dogs for personal protection. This law should include the vast majority of breeders who sell dangerous dogs of any breed to inexperienced first time dog owners or handlers. Probably wishful thinking but that's the way I feel. Too bad the reputable breeders cannot get together to write and propose such a law. Of course this will never happen because even the most reputable breeder has sold someone a poorly tempermented or dangerous dog at sometime in their life, knowing fully well that a particular dog was too much for the new owner to handle safely. As always it's about money and their not going to do anything that might prevent them from continuing this practice. Why? Because there are more of these types of dogs being bred and born than there are stable ones. I haven't seen a breeder yet say "NO" to a handful of the green stuff!

Glenn

For those of you that have posted that pitbull are responsible for only 1/3 of the fatal attacks, I posted the complete Morbidity & Mortality Reports published by the CDC for a breakdown per breed/ per fatal attack / per year for several years in a past post and sorry, the pitbulls were responsible for way more than 1/3 of the fatal attacks. And when you take into account their fairly small numbers compared to the dog population as a whole, those figures looked even worse.

And Andy is spot on regarding the Miami results from BSl - the problem owners are the ones that still end up having the dogs. Until they put some real teeth into those laws, such as huge fines, confiscation of property and auto's used for housing or transport of the breed, and mandatory jail terms, the problem won't clear up.

What is the key word to find those facts I am trying the search and just can't seem to find the right words

CDC

This is a reference to 1/3 statement.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#Thedogsmostlikelytobite


"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF(i.e.,dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through 1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....(T)he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there seems to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."


They inflate the percentages of bites caused by Pit Bulldogs and Rottweilers, first by categorizing the pit bulldog into a broad description of "type" which skews the accuracy of the statistic. They also lead one to believe the Rottweiler is responsible for 67% of DBRF by limiting the number of years referenced(2yrs out of a 12 year study), in order to increase the percentage points.

 Quote:

They also lead one to believe the Rottweiler is responsible for 67% of DBRF by limiting the number of years referenced(2yrs out of a 12 year study), in order to increase the percentage points.

This should say Rottweilers and Pit Bulldogs.

For some reason, I'm not allowed to edit my posts.