What Kind of Dog is This?

[Joe Bob]

Bzzzzttttt, u lose.

Dog Bite Statistics
Approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur each year
Dogs that bite the most:
Chihuahua
Bulldog
Pit Bull
German Shepherd
Australian Shepherd
Lhasa Apso
Jack Russell Terrier
Cocker Spaniel
Bull Terrier
Pekingese
Papillion

https://www.caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/

BTW, Chihuahuas aren't dogs they're just pissed off midget liberals....

[Joe Bob]

Dog bite pressures.....

Kangal: 743 PSI
Doberman: 600 PSI
English Mastiff: 556 PSI
Rottweiler: 328 PSI
African Wild Dog: 317 PSI
American Bull Dog: 305 PSI
German Shepherd: 238 PSI
American Pitbull: 235 PSI
Dutch Shepherd: 224 PSI
Malinois: 195 PSI

[KFC911]

Wow...been around a bunch of Dobermans in earllier years...super trained an alpha as a kid...great dawgs imo. Either have forgotten, or just never knew their bite was that powerful by comparison. Yeah... them little ankle biters don't count....and I've known some too...they'll attack an elephant

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by javadog

Sure they do. Let's all agree, that the majority of dog bites in this country are from pit bulls. I don't know if that's true, but let's assume it is. The question then becomes, is it because pit bulls are genetically more likely to bite than other dogs? Is it because there are more pit bulls? Is it because pit bulls are more often raised by bad owners? Etc.

I ask these questions because the studies that have been done by qualified people that have looked into the factors beyond which breed had more bites, concluded that breed was not a causative factor.

With an outlandish and patently false claim like that, it's no wonder you provided nothing in the way of supporting documentation. The rest of us have, in support of our positions, time and time again.

[DanielDudley]

Originally Posted by javadog

Sure they do. Let's all agree, that the majority of dog bites in this country are from pit bulls. I don't know if that's true, but let's assume it is. The question then becomes, is it because pit bulls are genetically more likely to bite than other dogs? Is it because there are more pit bulls? Is it because pit bulls are more often raised by bad owners? Etc.

I ask these questions because the studies that have been done by qualified people that have looked into the factors beyond which breed had more bites, concluded that breed was not a causative factor.

How about dogs that kill ? Because I'm not afraid of getting killed by a Pekinese, or even five at once. And statistics can speak to me, because words and stuff don't really negate them because conclusions and stuff can be whatever you want them to be but statistics don't really alter, and on this one particular statistic, it is always one breed that leads the pack.

Show me when that changes.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

With an outlandish and patently false claim like that, it's no wonder you provided nothing in the way of supporting documentation. The rest of us have, in support of our positions, time and time again.

I have supported my positions in the past, you just have a selective memory. If you were interested, you could even find them on your own. A Google search will take you less than a minute, but I would suggest that it's a waste of time. You've got your mind made up, you are not interested in a serious discussion, as can be seen by the endless threads you post every time a pitbull makes the news.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by DanielDudley

How about dogs that kill ? Because I'm not afraid of getting killed by a Pekinese, or even five at once. And statistics can speak to me, because words and stuff don't really negate them because conclusions and stuff can be whatever you want them to be but statistics don't really alter, and on this one particular statistic, it is always one breed that leads the pack.

Show me when that changes.

My only point is that you and others don't understand how the statistics are used.

The majority of you guys promote the notion that the reason so many incidents occur with these dogs is because they are, in your words, genetically programmed killing machines. My argument is simply that's not what the studies show, the reason they are involved in so many of these incidents is simply because they are more often raised and handled inappropriately by people that have no business being anywhere near a dog.

Some dogs require more care in ownership than others, and 99 percent of the population hasn't the first ****ing clue how to live with a dog, and that's the biggest part of the problem.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by javadog

I have supported my positions in the past, you just have a selective memory. If you were interested, you could even find them on your own. A Google search will take you less than a minute, but I would suggest that it's a waste of time. You've got your mind made up, you are not interested in a serious discussion, as can be seen by the endless threads you post every time a pitbull makes the news.

Myself and others have posted links to literally dozens of studies over the years, on many, many threads that have soundly refuted your position.

Certainly you must have a source for your latest outlandish, unsupported claim. To implicate that I am "uninterested" or that I "could find them on (my) own" is the oldest trick on the internet when you cannot produce said source. I have researched this topic quite thoroughly, as have many others who have participated on these threads. Each and every unbiased, reputable study we have collectively posted has implicated pit bulls just as we describe. You have what is clearly a very well developed ability to ignore each and every one of them, making unsupported counter claims.

I'm asking you to support this one. I have looked, believe me, and I can find no recognized, reputable source that agrees with your statement. None. If it were so easy to find, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to show us, now should it? Or if it were indeed reputable, you wouldn't be so reluctant to show us, now would you?

At some point, when you steadfastly ignore such a huge, well vetted, accepted body of evidence, ignore major study after major study by the most reputable sources, you begin to appear the fool. You have certainly achieved that status. Well done.

[javadog]

Here you go, you ****ing idiot. First thing that pulled up in my search, took all of a second and a half:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

There are countless others. Maybe if you read it, it will clue you into the fact that there are other factors, besides breed, that are a bigger influence in the number of attacks attributed to pit bulls.

[javadog]

Here's another one I posted on October 28, 2017, in yet another one of your anti-pitbull threads:

https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726?journalCode=javma

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by javadog

Here you go, you ****ing idiot.

That is kind of uncalled for, isn't it? I guess that's one of the beauties of the internet for guys like you - you can say these things like that with no ramifications. I can tell you this, however, in real life - face to face - I would knock your teeth right out through the back of your neck.

That out of the way, let's deconstruct your article.

First off, it's notable in that it is very well annotated. At least when presenting facts and data. Those facts and data, by the way, very solidly support my position, and the position of the majority of the contributors to our many threads covering this very dangerous, unpredictable breed. I've included excerpts that demonstrate this below.

Where this article falls very, very short, however, is where it presents the authors' opinions, and fails to support them with their otherwise very thorough annotation. Its many statements that begin with or include "may" are notable in their lack of annotation. I have highlighted those with my own comments:

In a range of studies, the breeds found to be highly represented in biting incidents were German Shepherd Dog,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,50 mixed breed,1,4,6,8,10,11,12,19,17, 20,50 pit bull type,5,9,13,16,21,20,22,23,24,25,26,27 Rottweiler,15,18,22,24,25,28) Jack Russell Terrier,21,25,26 and others (Chow Chow,7,23 Spaniel,14,26 Collie,3,29 Saint Bernard,20 and Labrador Retriever2).

If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities,21,23 pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified.

However this may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim's community, reporting biases and the dog's treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs21). The only annotated conjecture in the entire article, and we have no access to the annotated study. Nonetheless, the authors still present this as conjecture - not fact.

Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. No annotation given in support of this statement. What studies? Many others are listed in support of other points, why not these? The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.45 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type. Pure conjecture, again with no supporting annotation.

It should also be considered that the incidence of pit bull-type dogs' involvement in severe and fatal attacks may represent high prevalence in neighborhoods that present high risk to the young children who are the most common victim of severe or fatal attacks. Once again, we see the authors' conjecture presented without supporting annotation. And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts46 O.k., so this statement is supported with annotation—breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor. But this is not... once again, the authors' conjecture, presented without supporting annotation.

Do you see a pattern there? The authors present facts about the breed's behavior, and annotate quite thoroughly when they do so. But then, in an attempt to introduce causation other than breed, they devolve into conjecture with no supporting annotation whatsoever. They are drawing conclusions that the evidence does not support, injecting their unfounded opinions into an otherwise factually supported paper.

I don't know where you went to school, but where I did, a paper like this would earn a resounding "F". There is clearly a lot of reporting bias, with the authors hoping you might not notice the difference between the facts they present and the unsupported opinions they present. I take it from your notion that this paper actually supports your position that you did not pick up on that. And I'm the "frickin' idiot"...

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

And I'm the "frickin' idiot"...

In the context of this particular discussion, yes, I think you are. Why? Because you make statements like this:

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Myself and others have posted links to literally dozens of studies over the years, on many, many threads that have soundly refuted your position.

I'm asking you to support this one. I have looked, believe me, and I can find no recognized, reputable source that agrees with your statement. None. If it were so easy to find, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to show us, now should it? Or if it were indeed reputable, you wouldn't be so reluctant to show us, now would you?

At some point, when you steadfastly ignore such a huge, well vetted, accepted body of evidence, ignore major study after major study by the most reputable sources, you begin to appear the fool. You have certainly achieved that status. Well done.

Let's delve into that, shall we? What I see you posting, repeatedly, are salacious news stories of the latest "pitbull incident." A news story is not a study. What I see others posting are statistics and anecdotal accounts of their experiences with the breed. I'm not saying these incidents don't occur, nor am I saying that people can't form their own opinion about subjects. I will push back on the notion that "breed" is the overwhelmingly dominant causative factor in these incidents, which is the basic narrative you push. Your solution is to ban them, or kill them all. What studies have shown is that doesn't likely won't make a significant difference. Nothing you have posted has refuted any of that. None of the statistics posted by others has delved into causation. I could certainly come up with numbers that show that, within my lifetime, Boeing planes have killed more Americans than pitbulls. That's a statistic. It's also pointless, if that's as far as you take it.

I also refute the notion that I haven't supported my position. In your last attempt at bashing these dogs, I provided a link to an abstract of a study that concluded, among other things, "Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention." I linked it again in this thread, in post 112, in case you're too lazy to go back and read your own threads. You claim "I have looked, believe me, and I can find no recognized, reputable source that agrees with your statement" which I find impossible to believe, given that I handed you one on a platter.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

That out of the way, let's deconstruct your article.

Yes, let's do that. The article in question is simply a survey of some of the available literature on dog bite studies and related topics. It was presented to you to illustrate the point that the subject has indeed been studied, it's not hard to find references to those studies and, if you were truly interested in studying the problem, you could go look for these articles and read them.

TO BEAT IT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD, it was a not a study to support any particular position, it was simply quoted to refute your inane position that you've "looked hard and can't find anything to refute your position." The reality is that you haven't looked hard and you don't care to learn anything that contradicts your position on these dogs. Anything you say to the contrary is just horse****.

To add further insult to injury, you condemn me as an "internet tough guy" then the next thing out of your mouth is "in real life - face to face - I would knock your teeth right out through the back of your neck." Well done, you idiot.

All I have ever attempted to say is that most of the reputation accorded these dogs by the great unwashed is either complete horse**** (worst bite, locking jaws, snaps without warning, etc.) or a result of failures of their owners to care for the animals properly and act responsibly to safeguard them and the public. If you truly wanted to solve the problem, you'd work on the humans and not try to legislate the breed out of existence. Take away a pitbull from a gang-banging ******* owner and all he'll do is replace it with something else (Rottweiller, Dobie, whatever) and ruin that dog breed.

The dogs

[javadog]

From what I've learned of those dogs, one was acquired as a pup and the other was acquired from an abusive household. They don't look very healthy in that photo; it was reported that she had given the dogs to her father to care for, although he didn't really care for them. They went from living indoors to living outdoors and didn't even get fed daily.

The police indicated that she had defensive wounds on her hands and arms, also wounds to the face and neck. The police stated that the wounds to the face and neck were first, I really doubt that, and I can think of no way that they could have determined that. Apparently she was found two days after she was killed and the dogs were still with her.

We will probably never know how she was killed. My best guess is that the dogs began to fight each other, for one reason or another, and she tried to intercede. That's generally a bad idea, as the dog will interpret that as the human trying to also fight the dog, in which case they will defend themselves against both the attack from the other dog and the perceived attack from the human.

A sad situation for all concerned, for sure.

[Jeff Higgins]

You clearly have anger issues...

That, and an inability to recall the studies and statistics many of us have posted, claiming that all we have posted are "salacious news articles". Worse yet, you clearly cannot even understand the very paper you posted as the centerpiece of your argument.

The authors very much acknowledge pit bulls to be far and away the breed most guilty of attacks leading to serious injury or death. In every case in which they do so, they are careful to provide a footnote to the referenced study(s). Where the paper falls apart, however, is where they try to explain it all away with statements that contain "may". These statements are glaringly different, in that they are not supported with a footnote to any kind of relevant study. As such, they are clearly no more than the authors' opinions. As much as this paper dwells on pit bulls, offering unsupported opinion in its attempt to say it isn't the breed, it's obviously written by some sort of pit bull apologists. No wonder you like it.

So, yeah, here you are, backed into a corner and lashing out with childish insults. You keep repeating the same false information; it keeps getting debunked by the rest of us. Must be frustrating, but it's no reason to devolve into childish insults.

Here is something for you to chew on. The authoritative source on dog bites in the U.S.:

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2016.php?gclid=Cj0KCQiAvrfSBRC2ARIsAFumcm_zedp4XiT FzjNQFbsmIQLf14iI9xuc2iVcK6Onw1O9WBHAnFbSGiMaAmimE ALw_wcB

From the above link:

31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.3

Here is a chart showing the above data graphically:



This pie chart, from the site above, is pretty damning. 64% of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. over a 12 year period are attributed to pit bulls:

https://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/12-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

I have posted the above links in the past. I thought I would repost, thereby giving you another chance to ignore them and lash out at me with childish insults instead. Face it - your position is unsupportable. This is very much a breed-specific problem.

[ben parrish]

There are dog that will bite within every breed. "Sweet" dogs can and will bite given the right trigger. "Malicious" breeds can be life long companions and never show any aggressive behavior.
I am a dog lover...have rarely had any dog that didn't like me immediately.
I have a Chihuahua that is a little ***** in the personality department. If she weighed what my lab weighs, there is no way I would have her...too much liability and I know she will bite.
I had a terrier mix/pit in my early twenties that was a sweet, loving animal. One day, while disciplining him for chasing a car, he turned on me and lunged at my face. He was put down that very day. I saw the glazed look in his eyes and clearly knew if he had bit me, I would have been in real trouble. He was a risk I could not justify having for my self and those that he would come into contact with.
Defending this breed is nothing other than an emotional response because one in invested in an animal. Being blinded by love and ignoring the potential for serious damage and death from an attack is both foolish and dangerous. Statistics can be turned and twisted to make a point to justify your "beliefs" but the unsinkable fact is when a pit mix attacks, it is devastating.
The breed is chosen as fighting/hog hunting/guard dogs for their aggression and fighting temperament. Having them as family pets is a risk that cannot be taken lightly.

[javadog]

Higgins, you have a comprehension problem.

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Worse yet, you clearly cannot even understand the very paper you posted as the centerpiece of your argument.

That paper isn't the centerpiece of my argument. To reiterate what I just posted: The article in question is simply a survey of some of the available literature on dog bite studies and related topics. It was presented to you to illustrate the point that the subject has indeed been studied, it's not hard to find references to those studies and, if you were truly interested in studying the problem, you could go look for these articles and read them.

TO BEAT IT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD, it was a not a study to support any particular position, it was simply quoted to refute your inane position that you've "looked hard and can't find anything to refute your position."

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You keep repeating the same false information; it keeps getting debunked by the rest of us.

You seem incapable of following my conversation. I never claimed that pit bulls aren't involved in a disproportion share of incidents. I am simply stating that the studies that have been done, that delve into causation, state that breed is not the dominate factor in the majority of these incidents.

Here is one such study, which I have now posted a link to three times:

https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726?journalCode=javma

Have you read it yet? There are others.

Your notion that "breed" is the dominant causal factor in these incidents is both too simplistic and incorrect.

[Baz]

Let's set aside breeds for a minute and look at this list:

Things to Consider Before Getting a Dog

There are a few key things to consider before bringing a new dog into your home, especially if you already have other animals or children. Below are a few factors that, if considered, can help decrease your chances of an unwarranted attack before an animal ever walks through your front door.

• Dogs with a history of aggression are not appropriate for a home with children. Period.
• Before choosing a dog, research and consult with a professional (a trusted vet or dog trainer would be an excellent resource) to find the best breed for your needs.
• Proper socialization and training for your pup is key.
• Spend time with your prospective pet before adopting to ascertain aggressive tendencies.
• Spay or neuter your animal to reduce aggressive tendencies before bringing them home.

Before we start euthanizing certain breeds.....shouldn't we begin by "insisting" on more intelligent behavior by humans as it pertains to dog ownership?

I realize that by nature, many humans are too stupid to understand basics like the above - so there's that issue, as well.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

---snip---

Here is something for you to chew on. The authoritative source on dog bites in the U.S.:

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2016.php?gclid=Cj0KCQiAvrfSBRC2ARIsAFumcm_zedp4XiT FzjNQFbsmIQLf14iI9xuc2iVcK6Onw1O9WBHAnFbSGiMaAmimE ALw_wcB

---snip---

Yo Jeff......the above website, whether or not it's the "authoritative source on dog bites in the U.S.), seems to be biased against Pit Bulls, based on their statements as follows in their ABOUT US page:

Who we are

DogsBite.org is a public education website about dangerous dog breeds, chiefly pit bulls.

We are needed more than ever

DogsBite.org is also the primary whistleblower combating well-funded animal “expert” groups that manipulate the truth about dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls. As maulings, maimings and deaths inflicted by a distinct group of dog breeds continues to accelerate3 and more communities seek solutions, DogsBite.org is needed now more than ever. We are the public's countervailing force to these well-funded animal groups that have no mission or duty to protect human lives.

Policies we support

Pit bull ban
A breed ban is the most proactive policy that can be undertaken concerning the pit bull problem. A ban saves the most human lives by preventing attacks before they occur. By prohibiting pit bull breeding, a ban also saves countless pit bulls from systematic euthanasia. Cities as large as Denver and Miami have adopted pit bull bans. Pawtucket recently released data showing the dramatic success of their ban.

About the founder

Colleen Lynn resides in Austin, Texas and operates Lynn Media Group. On June 17th, 2007, she was attacked for approximately 5-seconds by a leashed pit bull while jogging in her former Seattle neighborhood. She was hospitalized for two days at Harborview Medical Center after undergoing surgery to repair a severe bone fracture. Four months later, she launched DogsBite.org. Learn more about Colleen Lynn by reading her four-year anniversary blog post about her attack.

The stats on her site *may* be accurate - I don't know. Just seems like she has a bit of a vendetta against a *certain* breed.....

[javadog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

That, and an inability to recall the studies and statistics many of us have posted, claiming that all we have posted are "salacious news articles".

Just so we are on the same page, here's every link you posted, before today, in the last three anti-pit bull threads you have started:

Police, family searching for 3 dogs that violently attacked 7-year-old boy | KOMO

https://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-owners.php

KFC Victoria Wilcher: Why Do So Many Pit Bulls Maul Children? | Time

https://www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html

Sheriff: 22-year-old Va. woman mauled to death by own dogs | KOMO

Not a single one is a scientific study. News articles and opinion pieces, every one of them. The closest you came to anything scientific was the second link, which was an article that discussed a variety of other studies, news articles and books. That one was written by a woman with no scientific training, that operates a website design business, because she was once bitten by a pit bull and now thinks it's her duty to save the world from such dogs. An expert like you, I'm sure.

Do me a favor, read the study I posted, and get back to me. This one:

https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726?journalCode=javma