Why Dogs Attack - Rather Interesting Article

So you know, that website is the moral equivalent of stormfront when it comes to "pitbulls" She was attacked by a "pitbull" and now she doesnt want anyone to own one, and she will make things up off the top of her head to support her stance.

Every major dog group that you can think of, SPCA, hsus etc, oppose BSL, these are the experts not some woman with no expertise in animal behavior with a web site and a chip on her shoulder.

The CDC will even tell you, that most of their data comes from the media(i can provide a link to prove this im sure).

Temperment tests on a large cross section of dogs are the data you need to truely be able to say, one breed is more dangerous then the next. Not hearsay.

 

No, they don't, because they don't tell the full story. There are several factors involved in such statistics, and if you watch the video I posted earlier it mentions one of them - the demonization (and banning in some places, including the UK) of 'pit bulls' and similar dogs is exactly what attracts a disporportionate number of owners to them who should never be left in charge of any kind of dog. A second factor is the common misidentification of dogs - many so-called 'dog people' can't actually identify a pitbull, and that's even more true of 'non-dog people'. Many dogs involved in attacks that are identified by witnesses/victims as 'pit bulls' or 'pit bull types' were often not that at all, but have been assumed to be 'one of them pit bull things' because they were apparently 'big, powerful and nasty'.

Pit bulls can make fantastic pets, as long as they are in the hands of knowledgable, caring and responsible owners. Golden Retrievers can be extremely dangerous if they are in the hands of idiot, ignorant owners, and especailly idiot, ignorant owners who want their dog to be 'hard' or 'impressive' or 'nasty' or 'protective'. The same applies in reverse, of course, and the same applies to any breed of dog (and a dog doesn't have to be very big to be potentially dangerous, especially to a child).

So where does that leave us in terms of answering the problem of how to prevent (or at least minimise) dog attacks on people? The only logical conclusion, which is supported by the large body of professional opinion in the dog world, and proven by the fact that nowhere have such measures actually been effective, is that BSL is completely illogical and useless, and only serves to make matters worse by making some of the most powerful breeds more attractive to those who shouldn't have them. The answer to the problem quite clearly and obvoiously lies at the other end of the lead - it is the issue of owner education and responsibility that needs to be addressed, and addressed for ALL dog owners, not just owners of certain breeds.

At the moment, if someone who has a dog that actually attacks someone, unless there are specific extreme circumstances of neglect which can be proved, the result of the attack is generally that the dog is killed (almost always without any kind of behavoural assessment of the dog or the situation to find out why it did what it did), and the owner is free to go out and get another dog. To use a gun analogy, it's like saying that if someone shoots another person with a gun, the gun is destroyed, and the shooter is free to just go out and get another gun to replace it. That quite obviously can't be right! The responsibility needs to lie firmly with the owner, and anyone who owns a dog needs to understand their responsibilities and how to carry them out effectively.

In the case of BSL, a responsible owner can have their perfectly well behaved family pet killed just because it looks like a certain 'type' (many BSL laws include a 'pit bull type' definition, which is simply a list of physical characteristics to be matched, and nothing to do with either its breeding or its behaviour), whereas an irresponsible idiot has no action taken against them (or help given to them, if lack of knowledge is the issue) at all until it is too late. It's ludicrous, has no basis in logic, and has been shown to be totally and utterly ineffective in preventing dog attacks.

Banning breeds just doesn't work. That has been proved time and time again, in every place where it has been tried. It's time to recognise that and move on to dealing with the real issue of irresponsible owners.

There are, for example, dog owners who obviously think that when something like this is going on in their yard, they should stand and take photos:


No doubt, though, if that child had been bitten, it would have been the dogs fault - 'he just suddently turned', 'he's never done anything like that before', etc., etc. - and the result, aside from one hurt child, would be one dead dog, and probably owners with a new dog that they hope doesn't 'suddently turn nasty' like the old one did. 'We just can't understand it', they would no doubt say - no, I don't suppose they can, which is why someone like that should never, ever be allowed to have a dog - such people are a danger to themselves, their family, and any poor dog that is unfortunate enough to end up in their hands. And it makes no difference that it isn't 'one of them evil devil dogs', either!

 

The key there is the 'w/o warning' bit. Just because a person hasn't seen or understood a warning doesn't mean that it isn't there. The idea that dogs suddenly, 'without warning' and 'without reason', 'turn' is a complete myth (the only way it can actually happen like that is in the case of something like a brain tumour, which is obviously extremely rare). It's unfortunately quite common for owners to not be sufficiently knowledgable to understand the warnings and reasons, though.

For a start, anyone who thinks that a chow is a 'cuddly' dog should never, ever, ever have a chow! They are certainly not the 'teddy bears' that their looks might suggest. They are very powerful, have very low handler dependency, are independant-minded, naturally aloof and stand-off-ish, and not really 'people dogs'. They should only be in the hands of experienced and knowledgable dog owners who have the right knowledge and skills (and personality and patience!) to understand their traits and needs and be able to work with them. When they are in such hands, of course, they are wonderdul dogs, but like any of the older and more 'primative' breeds, they need a little more knowledge and understanding to deal with than many other breeds - they are certainly not dogs for first time dog owners, nor for those who believe that every dog is 'just a dog'.

 

Here is a good example of a dog bite that seems 'to come out of nowhere'. Everything seems fine at first, but if you pay attention to the dog's body language and facial expression... you can tell it's about to open a can on the reporter. The dog obviously didn't like the 'aggressiveness' of the reporter and reacted accordingly.

[video=youtube;W6SDOTzmbSs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6SDOTzmbSs[/video]

Some dogs are unduly aggressive though. There is no denying that. Whether it be the result of nurture or nature, you simply have to be careful around large, unfamiliar dogs... they can actually kill you!

 

Yup. If you look at what the reporter is doing in grabbing him around the head and face area, then leaning over him, it is (from the dog's point of view) very threatening behaviour and body language, and the dog is making it quite clear through its own body language that he is not happy with it and wants him to back off. Add to that the dog picking up on the possible stress of his handler in that situation (if the handler is nervous about being interviewed on TV, for example - the dog isn't to know that it isn't that he's scared of the reporter!), and the reasons behond it are quite easy to see - from the dog's point of view, there is nothing 'unprovoked', and nothing 'without warning' about it at all. It was a perfectly reasonable response to the ongoing situation the dog saw itself as being in. The responsibility for that bite lies with the officer/handler, though - he should have known not to allow the reported to behave that way in the first place, and should also have seen the clear signs of the dog being unhappy, and taken him out of that situation immediately (by either moving the dog or the reporter).

Also, there is the all too common misinterpretation of such events themselves, and what they mean. Something like that would often be labelled as a 'sudden and unprovoked vicious attack' (or something similar) - we can already see that it isn't 'unprovoked' from the dog's perspective, but it certainly isn't an 'attack', either! That was a warning bite - an 'I'm serious - go away now' message, resulting from the failure of the reporter to respond positively to the previous warnings signs telling him to back off. That's not an 'attack', nor is it a display of 'aggression' - it is the dog's way of telling him to go away immediately with a quick warning snap (which wouldn't actually do any real damage to another dog of that size at all, although it can obviously do damage to us fragile humans, and especially children). Had the reporter continued despite that next level of warnign he had just recieved, going by the body language of the dog, I would expect that the dog's next move would have been to try to run away and get himself out of the situation - in fact, had the handler not been holding him there, he would probably have done that already rather than giving that warning bite.

 

There's a fuller version of the video here:
[video=youtube_share;PHLnjiISsOo]http://youtu.be/PHLnjiISsOo[/video]

It illustrates a couple of other points.

1. The handler didn't know the dog, and the dog didn't know the handler - they weren't yet able to read each other as they should have been. Even then, though, if I can see the warning signs leading up to the bite, the officer should have been able to read them at the time - they are really quite obvious, and any professional dog handler should be able to see them quite clearly and easily! The dog was clearly unhappy from the moment the reporter placed his hand on the dogs head and left it there (also not good body language - placing your hand on top of the head of a dog you don't know is a really bad idea, especially if you are staring at him at the same time!), and the handler should have been able to see that and prevent the situation from developing any further.
2. Don't believe everything you hear on sensationalist TV shows (or newspaper headlines, for that matter) - most of the commentary is complete rubbish, and uses emotive terms to shock the viewer, instead of actually telling the truth! It also claims that the reporter was 'saved' by the officer pulling the dog away. I don't believe that is at all accurate - the dog was already on his was down from the warning bite anyway, and had no intentions of staying their or sustaining an 'attack'. Had he wanted to 'aggressively' go for the reporter or actually hurt him in a sustainable attack, he wouldn't have snapped at his face, he would probably have gone for his throat, where he could have clamped down and held the bite more effectively. There was no attempt from the dog to either put himself in a position to hold a bite, or to do anything other than snap and immediately release (which is a warning). That is simply NOT an 'attack' or an act of 'aggression', and the sensationalist commentary is simply wrong.

 

the problem with pit bulls vs other dogs is the way they bite. Dogs typically will bite and release, bite and release when they attack...pit bulls do not, they clamp on and don't turn loose. There was a story not so long ago about a family sitting in their house with their child on the floor, dog beside him. The dog suddenly turned and clamped onto the boy's face, they were unable to get him to release and they couldn't pull the dog off and the child died. Smothered.

I saw a pit bull attack a man and his dog on a police show, the cop was driving by and caught it on tape. The man stood on one side pulling his dog, the cop stood on the other and with both men pulling the pit STILL wouldn't/couldn't be pulled off his dog.

I don't blame the breed, it was bred to do this but I also would never have it around a child, even the sweetest dog can have a bad day and a bad day for a pit could be a tragic one for any child in its vicinity...

 

Excellent analysis of the attack. Also want to add that the reporter moved over the dog toward the handler; a move the dog interpreted as aggression toward the handler.

I have owned 2 German Shepherds in my life. My sister has one now and had another in the past. Loyal, brave, smart and very protective of the "pack"!

 

PubMed and the Journal of American Veterinary Medicine Association have an agenda? over half of all fatalities come from two breeds Pit-bulls and Rottweilers, Canadian studies reflect the same findings. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10997153

Invariably if there is a dog attack in my community the culprit comes from the list of top ten dog offenders and of those ten Pit's lead the list.

 

in fight with normal dogs fight it's all flashing teeth and no bite, the skin isn't usually broken... the fight is for one of position, the losing dog exposing it's neck to the winner and that where it ends...pits have been breed to ignore normal dog behaviour...

I've searched our old forum for a link to pit bull behaviour I had found without success. It was from a dog trainer whose father trained and fought pit bulls and he still trains them so i don't question his expertise. He recommends only experts own pits as they have to great a potential to kill and that despite people thinking they can train their dog his observation was 99% of people can't train their dog to sit and stay while they walk away so they have no hope of training their dog not to rip the babies face off.

 

Look at their source for the study, the CDC, which as I stated before, got its info from media reports. Its a circle of bad data all based on one study by the cdc, but if you read the CDC's report it even says in there that the data is for th most part hearsay.

Temperment testing of a large cross section of all breeds of dogs is the ONLY way to say one breed is more or less dangerous then the next.

 

and they also had reputation for attacks but when you when you take into account the popularity the breed and the number of bites/attacks are small relative to number of dogs in comparison to pit bulls where the opposite is true. Now look up the stats on the most popular dog the Labrador Retriever, from the CDC stats 1979-1998 Labradors are responsible for only 1 death, Pit bulls in that same time period with only .033 of the dog population accounts for 98...German Shepards a far more popular breed than pits 24... http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

my dog a BC has a record of being one of the top ten biters in the UK where it is popular but it's also a sheep herding dog so it's bites tend to be nips which are still classified as bites...my dog is very protective of his herd/flock but it's all bark and no nip, still I keep him on a short leash and warn kids away from him, BCs are quite shy don't like strangers approaching them... checking what stats I could find no reported fatalities for BCs ...

 

the "hearsay" doesn't say poodles great danes, retrievers, german shepards, and that "hearsay" media reports come from police reports, the media doesn't decide what the breed of dog is that commits a fatal attack the police do...

 

I've heard the best way to have a pit let go of its hold...is to stick something up its arse.

Is it true?

PS: Not trying to offend someone's sensibilities, just genuinely interested

 

Ohh really? I was unaware that when reporting the news that reporters waited several days for a police report to come out. You must live in a great area for news, our reporters dont have that kind of integrity around here. So why doesnt the CDC report just use police reports in stead of media reports? I mean if they are that easy to get it would seem to me to be worth while to add credit to their report.

Most people who consider themselfs dog people cant identify a american pit bull terrier, I would be willing to bet you fall in to that category.

Again, a temperment test with a large cross section is the only way to accurately say which breeds are more dangerous then the next.

 

Yup, those powerful jaws is the trademark of the pit bull. Part of the problem w/pit bulls are these guys who have a double-digit IQ and thinks they're 'big, tough, macho dudes' and wants a killer dog to impress people about how 'tough' they are and they don't have a clue in their head about the kind of dog they have at the end of the leash..... if they have the brains to put it on the leash.

Altho there's some breeds I'd never have, dogs are amazing w/their instincts & intelligence and how they can be trained to help people - cadaver dogs, police dogs, search & rescue dogs, some are trained to detect cancer in people, service dogs for the disabled, etc......

I had an adorable little Doll face Shi'tzu for a neighbor who died a couple of weeks ago and I will always miss her. She was the medical dog for her owner, JD, who was brain-damaged from a beating he took from street thugs when he lived in CA about 10 yrs ago. The brain damage causes seizures and when JD would hit the ground in a seizure, Muffin would jump on his chest and the magnet in her collar would activate the 'machinery' in his chest going into his brain and it would pull him out of his seizure.....

She's gone now from old age - died on the vet's table. I'll tell ya, that little Muffin sure left her paw prints on my heart and it's heart-breaking to see JD now w/o his Muffin. It's not normal.

But imagine that - a little Shi'tzu being a medical dog, papers and all - Muffin proved she could do just as good a job as any other breed......

 

eeeww the irony that sounds like hearsay...

every attack reported locally here the last year has been accurate... children and adults being attacked over a several month period by what appeared to be Pit bulls were when they were finally apprehended were in fact to be found Pit-bulls, a young couple savaged by a pair of dogs "reported" as Akita's were in fact Akita's, a baby reported as being killed by a Husky (yet more hearsay ) was in reality a Husky, children being threatened by retriever crosses were actually retriever crosses, the latest a week ago a woman savaged (had her face surgically reattached)by two dogs that appeared to be Pit Bulls were astonishingly enough Pit-bulls...amazing how those journalists got it right every time was it guesswork or was it from police reports?...any fatality is investigated by police, animal control services and coroners, media reports based on the findings of those authorities are reliable...

most people who own pit-bulls or any dog can't even make them sit and stay...not much of an issue when it's toy poodle or a chihuahua but when it's a Rottie, Akita, Chow or Pit-bull that's serious issue that should raise red flags....

ya the best temperament test yet is attacks resulting in death relative to breed, it kind trumps any test you may come up with...

deaths attributed to breed 1979-98

Labradors the most popular and common of breeds has 1 death attributed to it

Pit-bulls 66th in popularity has 98 deaths or over half of all human deaths due to dog attacks

of course according to you those were all the result of mistaken identity and hearsay those deaths were actually from poodles, chihuahuas and Labradors

 

true I've had that exact conversation with animal control people, macho idiots who think it's cool having a dangerous beast, they have no clue how to train dog and are a tragedy waiting to happen, they told me it's a common problem...

you get a badly behaved dog in any breed but the consequences of that vary with the breed,...what pit-bulls owners are incapable of understanding is that that particular breed has been breed to be an effective killer and it has the size and power to do that to humans...a chihuahua with a nasty temperament and an irresponsible owner and some kid gets his ankle gnawed on, a pit-bull with a similar attitude and owner and the kid gets ripped the kid to pieces...

 

Heres the aspca's take on the pit bull media bias. http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-c...ut-the-issues/pit-bull-bias-in-the-media.aspx

If you go to the links that the aspca recomends for info on fatal dog attacks, I assure you, you will not like what you see. I know, the aspca is owned by macho pit bull guys.

 

Remember to have someone film it when you road test that idea.

 

I prefer big dogs, but we have a smaller dog now who is much easier to care for and smaller dogs seem to have a lot of character. Regarding the lab, a Jack Russell lived next to us and we used to encounter him every day. That is when he acquired a particular dislike of Jack Russells. As it happens, the Jack Russell married into our family. He was a little fecker, they spoiled him and he bit people randomly. It didn't worry them, because the dog was small. It didn't worry me either, until I had a baby.

Maybe it was more to do with the dog's previous experience.

 

It's a serious question.

Pittbulls are indeed notorious for not letting go of whatever they are holding between their jaws, and for being resistant to pain.

You can't just punch it in the nose and expect it to let go. Aiming at the balls only works if it's a male but it could damaged the dog's organs forever.

So I've heard the safest thing to do is to put your thumb up its arse, that will provoke a reflex and the dog will release its hold for a second or so. Additionally it will not hurt the dog severely.

Just wanted to know if that was true from the self proclaimed dog experts on here. But your contribution is noted ..

 

I think I'll pass on that idea...the last time I took action against a dog was when a Rottweiler X started ripping chunks out of my dog in a completely unprovoked attack. The RottieX was a big dog I'll guess 120+ lbs, one mighty kick to ribs laid him out, I suspect I broke a rib or two...I don't think a Pit-bull would fair any better, and if that doesn't work I always carry a Knife as backup...to add insult to injury the Rottie-X owner had to cough up $1000 for my dogs surgery...

 

well there ya go...if your neighbours dog was a Pit, Rottie, Chow you'd have a different story to tell, it's one thing for that spoiled dog to be an ankle biter and not something that can rip you to pieces...

I think my next dog will be a ferret, don't have to walk the d@mn things everday...

 

I don't carry any weapon. I've seen a pit been ran over by a car, projected several meters away, get up and continue on its path as if nothing happened; they have a very strong constitution, I doubt a simple kick will do in most cases. Perhaps in such circumstances my proposition could be considered the most gentle gesture, with regards to the dog.

Just wanted to know what was the best way to cope with a pit holding someone without raining on the love parade