CanadaRAM said:
Based on a sample size of four, your experience is that your dogs are well behaved and not aggressive, and have never attacked anything or any one.
Coincidentally, this is the exact same thing that the majority of owners say after an attack.
Back to my basic point (and BTW I do believe I included reports from several different breeds): Look to the result. Temperament or not, incidents with other breeds rarely result in catastrophic injury or death. Those with large dogs bred for fighting too often do.
And you have not convinced me that the attacks are solely the victim's fault or the owner's negligence.
The only thing Pitts were originally bred for was bullfighting. Nowadays, they should ONLY be bred as a family or show dog, not for anykind of fighting.
My experience is based on my own 4 AND the 25+ my friend has owned in his lifetime. He's bred over 100+ Pitts. Your experience is based off what the media has shown you.
If you could show me some shred of evidence that it's because of their breed that they do this, then I might see it differently. Pitts seem like they attack more because they cause damage and it's reported. Obviously, when they do attack Pitts, Rotts, and Chows have a higher potential to kill. Especially Pitts since they have the strongest bite and their jaws lock.
"If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year."
"From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide)."
"No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep."
My favorite quote summing up my point.
"Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be."
All quotes provided by fataldogattacks.com
Also, I found a site to dog attack fatalities. Rotts, Pitts, and Chows top the list. 20 people were killed lasty year in the USA by dog attacks. 7 in 2003.
"Pit bulls are strong, protective, and possibly misrepresented" according to the Montgomery Humane Society's Scott Missildine. He deals with them everyday. "They are often misinterpreted," he says. "I would say 90 percent of the problem is the owner."
The dogs that attack are not socialized with people (guard dogs) or are mistreated (fighting, malnourished). Most dog attacks, in general, happen to children under 10. That points alot toward kids being placed around the afformentioned dogs and not being well supervised by the parents. Many kids under 10 mistreat dogs as well. All of these things account for why things like this happen. It's total BS when people say they just snapped. There's always some reason that it happened.
BTW, from 1979-1998 Pitt Bulls were involved in biting incidents in the US 111 times. That comes out to about 5.5 bites per year. That's according to the
CDC.
There are at least 1 million Pitts in the US. I don't think 6 bites from one breed per year makes the entire breed bad.
Rottweilers bit even less.
One more bit of information regardiong the temperament of Pitt Bulls. This is from Wikipedia. "The National Canine Temperament Testing Association tested 122 breeds, and American Pit Bull Terriers placed the 4th highest with a 95% passing rate."
