Farren

LadyShea,

while I am loathe to see dogs in general more severely proscribed, in the interests of honesty I should mention that the statistics do indicate dogs are a major cause of wounding, though not death:

dog bite statistics

dog bite law center

What's interesting though is that when I google the same breeds come up time and again as the primary cause of these stats

* Pit Bulls
* Rotweilers
* German Shepherds
* Huskies
* Doberman Pinschers
* Chow Chows

Turns out I was wrong about Alsations (German Shepherds). Of the breeds listed above, one was bred as a pit fighting animal and two were bred as attack dogs.

IOW: They are bred for quick tempers and stubborn persistence.

From the personal testimonies I've heard from sufferers of high blood pressure, severe PMT and Diabetes, having an uncontrollable temper and being quick to snap does not make for a pleasant existence.

I think there's a case to be made for restricting the breeding of certain breeds as the Germans have done. It can't be pleasant for animals like pit bulls who live their lives so close to the verge of rage, or bull terriers who, for all their charming ways frequently suffer from worse and worse schizophrenia (manifested as phantom sounds and visual hallucinations) as they get older, and are so detached from their natural instincts that they require assistance in breeding.

I'm opposed however, to anyone making to general a case against dogs.

shome42

Ya, what Farren said!

Oh, and thanks for compiling a specific list of dogs that I would like to see made illegal.

Farren

LOL!

Thats rare honesty, that is.

shome42

I found the following particularly interesting from the website Farren posted:

"75-percent of the dogs [that had bitten people severely enough to require medical treatment] had not been involved in a previous bite or attack."

Wow, certain dogs sound pretty unreliable to me, like one day they might just snap!

There's a first time for everything, including the time when your precious pooch decides to maul little Susie from next door.

Dr Rick

That statistic might be a bit skewed because many first dog attacks become the last one possible for the dog.

shome42

That's true, but could it be possible that the statistic would be balanced out by all the cases that are never reported?

trillian

I think humans are more likely to "snap" than a well trained dog! There are a few Mike Tysons walking around pretty freely you know...and they bite! Should we muzzle and leash them too?

trillian

Viti

They were maybe never provoked before...the stats don't include circumstances. And I know the stats, I had quoted them earlier. Did you also note that 68% are unaltered males? Laws requiring neutering would be helpful wouldn't they? Maybe requiring breeding liscences to keep a dog unaltered and prevent irresponsible breeding?

Most bites are small dogs and never reported because they cause no damage. The dogs listed are big dogs that can cause damage. I freely admit that.

shome42

I'll repeat one of my previous posts (slightly modified):

[People], unlike dogs, can be reasoned with. They have rational minds...And even if they cannot be reasoned with, and they may hurt others, then there's nothing we can do becaus [people], being human, have the right to be free until they screw up. Anything less than human does not have that right and can be preemtively taken out of society because its too dangerous.

Viti

Also of note...the stats are skewed because the breeds are often reported by the person who was bit (unless the dog can be found and examined). The average American can't tell a Siberian Husky from a Malamute from an Akita. The word "Husky" by itself is an entire class of mixed breed sled dogs so is very uninformative.

Same thing with "Pit Bull", in the US among most insurance companies any dog that is ANY part English Bull Dog, Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, or a number of other breeds in the Molossar family can be called Pit Bulls. Boxers are very often misidentified as Pits Bulls.

And last but not least, most dogs are mixed breeds and it would follow that most bites are by mixed breed dogs. When reporting the breed for bite stat purposes, somebody chooses what they think is the dominant breed. Who is that someone? How are they qualified? I know dogs very well and I can barely identify my mixed breed...the shelter had him listed as a "Shepherd" mix, he looks like a Rottie mix to me, but also has traits that neither Rotties or German Shepherds have at all. So say he bit someone, the insurance guy or someone will pick a breed...what breed are they likely to choose?

The Insurance companies are not the most accurate or best source of this info in my opinion.