WOW. This is a terrible story that I thought was just awful.

But so is your reporting. Talk about irresponsible. You really had me with this story, UNTIL POINT #2. WTF?!? What does it take to make people realize that pit bulls are not more aggressive than other dogs? My pit bull/LAB MIX would not have done any more than bark "in an intimidating manner" if people had broken into my home. I will be reporting this story to all the dog rescue organizations in this city.

That may be what you read, but that is NOT what that says. I stand by my disgust at your taking the most dramatic way to write a story rather than just using the facts.

Matt, If you really wanted to address me you could have emailed me directly. Why did you say "It’s not like these dogs were pit bulls, foaming at the mouth" if you do not think pit bulls are more harmful than other dogs? You are feeding into incorrect public perceptions that pit bulls are more aggressive towards humans than other dogs. Since that was NOT the topic of the story it was totally unnecessary to use that imagery unless you were just trying to be dramatic. Irresponsible.

Honestly, this is the first article on this site that ever compelled me to actually click on and read. And then to be so offended? I suggest you go to http://www.ohmidog.com/ from now on if you want to read stories about animals, this guy knows a thing or two about animals and is a professional journalist.

I have to defend Matt a little bit here. According to dogbitelaw.com and a study by Animal People. There were 264 deaths by dog attacks between 1982 and 2006 in the US and Canada. Pit Bulls were the number one offender with 104. Rottweilers were second with 58. There were 2209 total attacks causing death or maiming and Pit Bulls were responsible for almost 3 times any other breed with 1110 of them. Labrador Retrievers were responsible for 26 total attacks and 2 deaths.

You're reaching. I highly doubt that the 1110 attacks (next closest was Rot with 409) were due to mistaken identity.

Don't get me wrong. I love dogs and I have a few friends with Pit Bulls and I love them too. I just also like facts. So when I read "What does it take to make people realize that pit bulls are not more aggressive than other dogs?" I want to know if that's true or just an owner speaking through emotion. The facts clearly show that Pit Bulls are more aggressive than ALL other dogs.

Matt,
YOU are using false statistics if you don't believe that mistaken identity plays a part. I challenge you to go to http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html and make the right choice the first time. There are not many "pure bred" pit bulls, and almost no shelter dogs are simply pit bulls.
According to the ASPCA, a Pit Bull is a label "used for a type of short-coated large terrier, anywhere from 40 to 80 pounds, characterized by wide, powerful jaws and a muscular, stocky build. Some of the dogs that fall under this category are pure-bred-either the American Staffordshire Terrier (the "AmStaff") or the American Pit Bull Terrier; term is often used for pit bull mixes."

That's funny. My aunt has a very large scar on her face from being attacked by a Spitz as a child. But believe whatever you want to believe. Clearly you want the facts to go your way.

I agree with Mike. It seems to me there is an inborn aggression in the breed. Is it coincidence that they are chosen as attack/fighting dogs? What were they bred for originally? Let’s ask Mike Vick to shed some light. He has some time on his hands.

I never said that other breeds can't be aggressive. Obviously, if there were 2200 attacks and 1100 were Pit Bulls then there were just has many by other breeds. I also mentioned that Labs killed 2 people. AGAIN, I was responding to the following quote. "What does it take to make people realize that pit bulls are not more aggressive than other dogs?" I'm not trying to impune the breed or suggest they should be extinguished. I'm just saying that this statement is a fallacy and the facts support my contention.

As a responsible owner of 3 pit bulls, I hate to see a so-called news outlet use a cheap reference like this. However, this is basically some guy's blog that no responsible person uses for accurate news reporting so I'm not even going to waste my time reiterating the millions of ways this comment is flawed.

It`s unfortunate that you made any reference to Pit Bulls at all in your story.
Since reading your explanation I see what you were getting at but IMO there was still no need to do it.
It does bring Readers in because it gets picked up by google alerts unlike Lab and I believe that`s why the reference was made.(I may be wrong)
I`m only here due to the Pit Bull google alert...

As far as people throwing out Statistics about "Pit Bulls",there are no meaningful Statistics.
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites1.asp
The CDC Study is often cited and the other "study: is a joke(collection of Newspaper stories which has been discredited).
CDC has issued this statement about their Study:

[quote]"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites.

****There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."****

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm


** The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) released statement on the erroneous use and conclusions of the CDC study:[/quote]

[quote]The facts clearly show that Pit Bulls are more aggressive than ALL other dogs.[/quote]

The Facts show no such thing!


For people who cite Newspaper Stories as "proof" of anything.
Credible?

Hardly
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/media1.asp

Someone mentioned Dogbitelaw

[quote]Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not: Again

On June 4, 2008, at least 29 news articles were run on a story about a Los Angeles boy "mauled by a Pit bull." Some of the headlines were:

*
"LA toddler hospitalized after being mauled by Pit bulls" - Fresno Bee
*
"2-year-old stable after pit bull bites his face" - LA Times

The Mercury News even reported that two Pit bulls attacked the child. Another article described the dog as the "family Pit bull." The Los Angeles Times reported the boy in "critical condition after he was bitten by a pit bull."

Perhaps the media should not bear the brunt for this serious error, as the source of the breed mis-identification was found to have originated from the Los Angeles Police Department.

The LAPD should not attempt to identify breeds of dogs or comment on canine behavior. The average police officer is no more skilled in breed identification than is the average reporter. Perhaps in the realization of this, the LAPD later referred all inquiries on the dog involved in this incident to the city's animal services department.

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services released a statement declaring the dog involved in the attack on the boy was "in fact a shepherd mix."

Note: Acknowledgement is given to the Los Angeles Times for printing a "For the Record" remark on the erroneous breed identification of the dog in this incident. On June 7th the LA Times printed the following: "An article in Thursday's California section about a boy attacked by his family's dog quoted authorities as saying the dog was a pit bull. The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services said Friday that the animal that bit the toddler was a shepherd mix."

However, this small retraction cannot possibly undo the damage that was done by the media. All the headlines run by the LA Times which initially identified this dog to be a Pit bull have not been pulled and can still be found in the LA Times archives.

Additionally, more than one *** ATTORNEY WEBSITE ***and dog bite "advocacy" website has picked up this "Pit bull attack" story and posted it on their website as additional "evidence" of the nature of Pit bulls. [/quote]


Like I said there may have been no ill intent in your reference to Pit Bulls but the only reason I`m here is because your Blog got picked up in Pit Bull Google Alerts because of your reference!

For those wanting to learn the truth about "Pit Bulls" visit
http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/section.php?id=5

And to the person who mentioned Vick,we don`t have to ask him,the dogs speak for themselves.
Only 1 was put down for showing any signs of human aggression.
1 is already a certified Therapy dog,a number have already been adopted into loving homes and they are ALL doing well.
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/vick/
Great qualities can be exploited and used for evil purposes-Dog Fighting or they can be used for good.

Therapy
http://www.forpitssake.org/therapy.html
http://www.ourpack.org/leo.html
SAR
http://www.forpitssake.org/sar.html
K9 Detection Dogs
http://www.lawdogsusa.org/lawdogs.html
Champion Athletes
http://wallacethepitbull.com/
http://ca.youtube.com/user/wallacethepitbull

Pit Bulls with Titles-CGC,ATTS,TDI,Agility
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/hall_of_fame.cfm
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/DogSurvey.htm
Just Good old Pets
http://server.inalbum.com/show/jodipreis/Message_to_the_Media2.html?296033009

Humans decide the role for these dogs.

Humans can set men on the Moon,discover vaccines or bring down the Twin Towers.
Good or Evil...it`s up to humans.

And one last thing for those who think "Pit Bulls" cause injuries unlike other dogs and they attempt to use that to justify BSL.
Match the fatal injuries at this link
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/canineaggression.asp
to these 15 Breeds.
[quote]Fifteen different breeds inflicted the fatal wounds listed above. The breeds were:

*
Siberian husky
*
Coonhound
*
Dachshund
*
Chow chow
*
Pit bull
*
Sheepdog-type dog
*
Malamute
*
Labrador Retriever
*
Chesapeake Bay Retriever
*
St. Bernard
*
German Shepherd dog
*
Wolfdog
*
Golden Retriever
*
Mixed breed (no discernable breed visible)
*
Rottweiler

It is virtually impossible for anyone to match the breed of dog with the fatal injuries listed above - as such - claims that one breed of dog inflicts injuries unlike other breeds have no merit. [/quote]

For a great read pick up
The Pit Bull Placebo by Karen Delise
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0972191410/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Thanks for mentioning Pit Bulls
Every Cloud has a silver lining
Helps to get the Factual information out there.

Find the Pit Bull
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v4.swf

Fatal Dog Attacks:The Stories behind the Statistics
http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Dog-Attacks-Stories-Statistics/dp/0972191402/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218267265&sr=8-3
Pick it up at the Library or I`ll sell you my copy for $199.89
It`s THAT good!

Maryland Stats
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/MarylandStats.asp
[quote]A National Canine Research Council Perspective Report

Over the past 43 years (1965 - 2007) there have been 12 fatal dog attacks in Maryland, or approximately one (1) fatality every 3 to 4 years.

At least ten (10) different breeds/types of dogs have been involved in a fatal attack in Maryland.

All the dogs involved in fatal attacks in Maryland were intact (not spayed or neutered).

The victims were: 3 adults and 9 children.

Two of the nine child victims were infants left unattended in a baby swing with a dog(s). Three other cases involved older children attacked when they attempted to interact with chained or restrained dogs. (One case was a boy throwing rocks at a chained dog and the dog breaking the chain and attacking the boy).

One of the adult victims was the owner of the dogs. The dogs had previously attacked their owner and her 17-year-old daughter. The daughter needed over 30 stitches to close the wound. Nevertheless, the owner not only kept the two dogs, but bred them, and a litter of puppies was on site the day the woman was attacked for a second, and fatal, time by her dogs. (1985)

In spite of the dangerous and reckless ownership practices of some dog owners, dogs still pose an incredibly low risk for causing a fatality:

Fatal Dog Attacks in Maryland as Compared to Other Selected Risks:

Snapshot of Maryland: Year 2004

Persons killed by dogs: 0
Fatal hunting accidents: 1
ATV-related fatalities: 9
Bicycle-related fatalities: 10
Persons drowned in tub or swimming pool: 19

Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

In 2005, twenty-eight (28) Maryland children died as the result of maltreatment (abuse or neglect).

In a SINGLE YEAR, more than THREE TIMES as many Maryland children died from maltreatment (abuse or neglect) than the TOTAL from ALL dog attacks in Maryland over the past 43 years.

So, are dog a danger? Fact is, people in Maryland routinely accept far greater risks from ATVs, bicycles and swimming pools than any that are associated with companion animals.[/quote]

Jesus...you said something dumb...just own it already. Even I've admitted to being wrong here before...and I'm a complete asshole.

!