Well, this thread seems to be winding down with hugs all around. The pit bull lovers happily agree that the others are ignorant bufoons, and the others have gotten bored.

Leaving the following data unaddressed:

US 1978-1998 pure-bred dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans ("death-based" count, i.e. excludes cross-breeds, attacks involving multiple dogs of the same breed are counted only once):
Pit bull-type 66
Rottweiler 39
GSD 17
Husky-type 15
Malamute 12
Doberman 9
Chow 8
St Bernard 7
Great Dane 7
Akita 4
and a few others
Labrador Retriever 1
Australian Shepherd 0
Collie 0

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

There goes that top-notch logic again. Go back to that ambulance chaser or all-knowing doo-gooder's site & get the info on how many akitas or great danes there are in comparison. Then you'll make a little more sense. While you're at it look & see how many of those dogs were whole male's who live on a chain. Then maybe you'll get it a little.

Mule, I think devotion to the pit bull breed can get in the way of a logical discussion.

First, the data I quoted is from a study by the Center For Disease Control. It merely happens to be linked from the dog bite lawyer's site. Would it be better if I linked to the CDC website? Here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Second, if the data shows a particular breed is involved in 8X as many fatal attacks as most other large dog breeds, "the ball is in the court" of the devotees of that breed. If you think the explanation is that there are many more dogs of that particular breed, it's kind of up to you to show the data.

Third, since you didn't, I will. http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm?SEARCH_BUTTON.X=0\&SEARCH_BUTTON. Y=0 From the American Kennel Club's 2004 registration statistics:
#1 Labrador retriever 146692
#2 Golden retriever 52550
#3 GSD 46046
#4 Beagle 44555
#5 Yorkshire Terrier 43522
#6 Dachsund 40770
#7 Boxer 37741
#8 Poodle 32671
#9 Shih Tzu 28958
#10 Chihuahua 24850
#11 Mini Schnauzer 24080
#12 Pug 23152
#13 Pomeranian 21269
#14 Bulldog 19396
#15 Cocker Spaniel 18553
#16 Rottweiler 17498
#22 Doberman 11724
#24 Husky 10566
#27 Great Dane 9507
etc etc (I got tired of typing, so after #15 I started listing only large breeds and I quit typing after #27). But the whole list is at the AKC website. By the way, #90 is Staffordshire Bull Terrier 791.

This data suggests that there are far fewer pit bull dogs than there are, say, GSD or retrievers or dobermans etc. I do realize that AKC registration statistics don't reflect the total number of pure-breed dogs, but I think it is a decent indicator of the relative numbers of different breeds. This is also consistent with what I see walking around - I see lots of GSDs and retrievers and very few pit bulls.) Since there are far fewer pit bulls than the more common large breeds (e.g. retrievers and GSDs) but 4-8X more fatal attacks by pit bulls, the data suggests there is an unusually high risk associated with pit bulls.

Fourth, maybe most of the attacks are indeed by abused/neglected male dogs who live on a chain. (Though this isn't something I've seen any data to support, do you have any?) Well, my original point was that if a neighbor owned a pit bull, I'd want to go over there and assure myself that the dog was well-trained, secured, and so on. What's wrong with making sure the neighbor's pit bull isn't indeed a neglected male on a chain?

I didn't expect this thread to be so polarizing. I may have been wrong about the "typical" Pit Bull owner. Plenty of intelligent, thoughtful and responsible owners on this board. However, I still say you fellas are the exception to the rule. I'm not for banning the breed but still feel Pits are not for the general public.

OK, I misunderstood you. I would not mention being bitten by a poodle - surely that can't hurt.

How many cases of poodles mauling children do you see on the news? Thought so.....

By the way, you have a very cute hairdo.

What you guys need to understand is that there is a very real movement in America to do away with the breed we love. IIRC, if I travel through Denver city limits with my dog, they confiscate and kill her. We feel it's the uninformed public (which many on this thread represent) which drives & allows this type of legislation. It makes me MAD!

Don't you guys wonder why we're so passionate about our dogs? Do you really think it's b/c we're stupid or trying to make up for a small penis? Have any of you stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, it's not the breed, but a specific sub-set of bad breeders and bad owners?

JYL- I don't have written proof. But, I would bet you large sums of $$$'s that breeders for attack/fighting dogs do not register with the AKC. Also, your typical street thug isn't going to take the time or spend the money going through the registering process. But, I could be wrong.

I'll say again... I have 35 years (my whole life) of experience with this breed. I've never been around another breed that was consistently more affectionate to humans.

I should also state... I encourage jailing bad owners & breeders and taking their dogs away. Such action would make life much easier for me & my dog.

- Skip

If pit bull lovers want to keep their dogs, they should be proactive. Try to keep the breed in the hands of responsible owners. Otherwise, the bad image will never be repaired.

Many landlord policies ban any agreesive breed of dog. Any chance to remove liability is OK by me.

A "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" is a small dog, ~30 lbs. Probably not what you're thinking, but often referred to as a "pitt bull". You need to add "American Staffordshire Terrier" (or AmStaff) to your AKC search.

Also, an American Pitt Bull Terrier (APBT), also known as "pitt bull" isn't recognized by the AKC. UKC registers APBT. So, you would need to include this data in your ownership calculations as well.

All of this will help you find out how many registered "pitt bulls" there are. But, I still don't think it will come close to telling you how many there are out there.

You should also know that an APBT is not an AmStaff is not an American Bull Terrier is not a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not an American Bull Dog is not a Dogo Argentino is not Canary Dog is not a Bull Terrier is not ... the list goes on and on. Yet, all these dogs are frequently identified as "pitt bulls".

The numbers thrown out here as "proof" can be widely misrepresented. Just because someone says a certain dog is a "pitt bull" does not make it so. These dogs are frequently mistaken. Other breeds are frequently mistaken as pitt bulls. Mixed breeds make it harder yet. I've watched vets get it wrong my whole life.

Also, has anyone actually read the CDC report? They got mucho data from newspaper reports. "Pitt bull" deaths ARE more news worthy than Lab deaths. The CDC data is flawed. The report states this.

Here's something that might interest you guys...

The most famous/most watched local "investigative" news reporter lives in my neighborhood. He did a "story" about a "pitt bull" attack which showed the viscous pittbull, in a cage, barking and generally going crazy (like we've all seen on TV) after it was accused of biting a lady.

Weeks later, while washing my 930, I saw him walking a pitt bull with his pregnant wife. They stopped to say hello, so I asked him about his new dog. Ends up it's the same one from the story. The dog had been mistaken as the bitter (the actual bitter was NOT even a "pitt"). He fell in love with the dog during the story and adopted him!!!

When I scratched my head and asked him why he aired the story, his response was, "If it bleeds, it leads". I was dumbfounded. He then explained how they had teased the dog to get him excited and barking, so they could shoot the footage. I wanted to clobber the guy.

Now, ya'll can can write this off all you want. But, I believe this is typical of what happens every day. There IS an unwarranted bias towards this breed.

- Skip

My friend is a Real Estate agent and is trying to find a rental property for a client that has a Boxer/Pit bull mix. Every property she has contacted has turned them down b/c the Pit Bull part.

It doesn't matter how sweet the breed is, lots of people don't want to risk it.

If I had rental properties, I would not allow them.

This is starting to bring back memories of Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is...

And by the way a Poodle can do real damage to someone not prepaired. You'd be surprised.

skip, the point I'm making is that from the point of view of a person who has no special devotion to the pit bull breed (e.g. me), the available data suggests the pit bull breed does in fact present an unusually high risk to humans, compared to other large dog breeds.

Think of my posts as an example of how a legislator, or public safety officer, or simply a member of the general public, might analyze the issue. Those people have no particular affection for, or even experience with, pit bulls. But they see that, compared to other large dog breeds like retrievers and GSDs and dobermans, the pit bull breed is 4-8X more likely to be involved in killing a human, even though pit bulls are far less common than those other breeds - suggesting that on average the risk from an individual pit bull is 30-60X higher than the average risk from an individual retriever, GSD, etc. Are you surprised that the pit bull breed has developed such a negative image and that some communities are passing laws regulating the breed?

To devotees of the breed, this viewpoint and conclusion may seem totally wrong. Okay, but how have the pit bull fans on this thread presented their side of the issue? I saw insults (e.g. ignorant, wanker, buffoon, etc - yeah, that's an effective way to convince others). I saw stone-walling (e.g. denying that the dog was bred for dog-fighting - contrary to most published accounts). I saw blame-shifting (e.g. the it's just "a few bad apples" argument - without suggesting what can be done about it).

In my opinion, the pro-pit bull posters are letting devotion to the breed get in the way of making a logical argument that is convincing to the majority of the public and their legislators. Some of you guys are thinking with your hearts, not your heads, and preaching to the choir, not to the skeptics.

I would think pit bull fans should be working to prevent irresponsible breeding of the dog, to screen owners and require training of dog and owner, and to work for responsible and acceptable regulation, in order to head off excessive and misguided legislation including breed bans.

Just so you know, I am a former dog owner (GSD/dobie, pom mix, and pure chow), and hopefully will be a dog owner again soon (probably GSD) and I'm not particularly pro or anti-pit bull. Where I live, I virtually never see a pit bull. I got involved in this thread simply because it was interesting, and started looking for information. I was surprised to find how much data there is that supports regulation of the breed, and I figured that if I posted it, we'd see the data that defends the breed. But I really haven't seen much of that latter.

P.S. Our posts crossed. You make good points that the data may not be fully reliable. But that's the data that is available to public safety officials and legislators when they're trying to decide what to do. How erroneous is the data - a lot or a little? Maybe pit bull owner groups should commission their own rigorous study.

John- I just noticed your edit. Looks like I almost crossed your post as well. Since I'm almost done, I'm going to respond as if your P.S. doesn't exist. :)

Respectfully, my point was, your data is flawed. Decisions based on incorrect analysis and false data is dangerous.

You "suggest" that our dogs are 30-60x more likely to kill people. Yet, you ratios are inaccurate. Kinda a garbage in, garbage out situation.

The numerator requires a complete accounting of the breeds involved, which according to the CDC, we don't have (for the reasons quoted below).

Your denominator is flawed as well - you only considered one registered breed. You failed to include all breeds of "pitt bulls" and theres no accounting of unregistered pitt bulls or mixed pitts. Do you wonder why the ratio is so high?

Did you read the portion of the article which discussed problems with breed specific legislation? There are MANY.

From the CDC on why their data is flawed:
You have to understand, our dogs are under attack. People want to take our dogs and kill them - totally eliminate all trace of them. Please try and understand that if we seem too passionate. My dog is part of the family!

You're the 2nd to suggest we owners should take a more active role in fixing the problem. The BEST way for us to do this is educating the public - which is what I'm trying to do. To believe we, as owners, can somehow personally stop breeding for fighting, control how street thugs train their dog to be aggressive, make sure all owners are responsible, etc is just unrealistic and unfair. Anyone can breed and sell dogs. Anyone can buy a dog. How do we control it? Kill all dogs? Or, try and make it socially unacceptable to have any dangerous dog and have hefty penalties if you do and they hurt someone. But don't empower people to kill my dog just because someone erroneously think the breed is dangerous.

That said, the breeder I purchased my current dog from definitely put me through a screening process (the good breeders all do this, at varying levels). It took me 6 months to convince her I was an acceptable human for her pup. No kidding. We fans ARE trying!

- Skip

p.s. If this breed is so deadly, why have I NEVER been growled at, snipped, bitten, mangled or killed? Again, my whole life I have been surrounded by "pitt bulls".

One more thing... Let's put this into perspective.

According to CDC, between 1979 through 1998 there were 76 deaths caused by "pitt bull types". Since these are usually reported in the media, I figure it's a decent figure.

In 1990 there were 859 bicycle deaths - in ONE year!!!

I say "Why own a bicycle - I just don't get it."

One more...
"According to the U.S. National Weather Service, 73 people die from lightning strikes each year"

Can anyone recommend a brand of invisible fence suitable for restraining a 19 lb road bike? I think my bike is prone to attacking random pedestrians.

Seems like this could be changed. Until now, CA law has prohibited breed-specific legislation, i.e. laws that would place specific restrictions on a particular breed(s). The CA governor just signed SB 861 that permits local communities to enact breed-specific regulations relating to spay/neuter and breeding. In San Francisco, the city council will likely consider requiring pit bulls and pit bull mixes to be spayed/neutered and for breeders of this type of dog to be licensed.

What's your view on this sort of regulation? Would you support any sort of regulation on who could own a pit bull type dog - e.g. mandatory training, screening of owners, no prior criminal records, etc?

I guess I'm trying to understand what sorts of measures pit bull devotees would and would not support.

Are you serious? You don't really think I was equating the two. I was simply putting it into perspective.

John- For me it depends. I say make it very painful for the unethical breeders and street thugs. And kill the b@stards that fight the dogs.

In theory, I love the licensing of breeders idea. But in practice, I wonder how successful it could be. I mean, look at how many bad "licensed" drivers there are on the road.

Also, forced spay/neuter is a problem. How do you keep a specific line going? My AmStaff comes from a 7 year National winning stud. I paid a significant amount for her. Shouldn't I be allowed to breed her? Isn't it good for the "breed" to breed her? We decided not to. But we could have gone to any number of breeders for help. Regardless, I'd be quite angry if some city council forced me to to spay/neuter.

I don't think there is an easy answer... except to punish severely those who are careless with ANY dog.

The real problem is the growing trend/threat that they will come pick our dogs up one day and kill them... Not a simple regulation here and there.

- Skip

Hey...while yer at it...why doan we consider a ban on stoopid people breeding?

Check your home owners insurance....they already deny coverage on "agressive breed" animals.

Meanest little bastard I have ever met was a Dauchshund.