Medford considers pit bull ban

[Tiamat]

Well if I was some council member or whomever who was considering a ban on pits do you think I should ignore some pit bull attack because it was a mile outside of medford?

I know what you mean. But the articles we have been reading say things about recent attacks. It makes it sound like it's in Medford. That attack is also 2 years old.

Beats me but I bet there are a lot of attacks ,dog bites or calls related to pits that come out of Medford to animal control or police.

So lets blame the dogs. Unless of course these are are wild dogs without human handlers.

How many dogs maul people and crush bone like pits so often do. How many dogs attack CHILDREN or small animals so viciously.

How many dogs behave this way?..... After 10 minutes of biting and tearing, the pit bull had severed most of the flesh and cartilage between Beaumont's right ear and skull.

"The dog's owner, with a closed fist, was punching this dog for at least 10 minutes, and that dog didn't even flinch," Burns said.

Ever seen a German Shepard do that, A doberman?



I wish I could tell you how many Times I've read about Pits with owners who did everything right , who never abused the animal and who never taught the animal to be vicious. Only to have the dog do something horrible.

But even IF I believed that the fault was solely on the owner and not the dog.
How do I ever stop the Pit bull maulings and deaths? And BTW most of the victims are children.

Once these dogs decide it's time to attack they do FAR more damage than most any other dogs.

IMO Blaming the owner of a pit is like allowing guns without a safety to be sold. And then when someone gets shot we THEN blame the owner.

The article says something about 89 attacks over the last 3 years. Presumably, the majority of which were pit bull attacks. None of which made the news, so we haven't heard about them. But there is an article about an Akita attack.

[Wonky]

<Snip>

IMO Blaming the owner of a pit is like allowing guns without a safety to be sold. And then when someone gets shot we THEN blame the owner.

I think you may have lost our logic card.

Wanna try and write that again?

OF COURSE we blame gun owners who allow guns to be used against people even though the gun is not equipped with a safety device.

[csrowan]

It may surprise you all to learn that daschunds, chihuahuas, and Jack Russell terriers are actually the most aggressive breeds of dog, and that pitbulls and Rottweilers are actually of average aggressiveness.

The problem arises not in the breed's aggressiveness, but in its power. A choice between having to deal with a very aggressive chihuahua versus a somewhat aggressive pitbull is an easy choice to make.

But if a pitbull is no more aggressive than the average dog, why do we need to ban them?


http://www.annarbor.com/pets/top-three-a...ets-bites/

[Wonky]

It may surprise you all to learn that daschunds, chihuahuas, and Jack Russell terriers are actually the most aggressive breeds of dog, and that pitbulls and Rottweilers are actually of average aggressiveness.

The problem arises not in the breed's aggressiveness, but in its power. A choice between having to deal with a very aggressive chihuahua versus a somewhat aggressive pitbull is an easy choice to make.

But if a pitbull is no more aggressive than the average dog, why do we need to ban them?


http://www.annarbor.com/pets/top-three-a...ets-bites/

Feeling okay are you CS?
Aggressive is one thing…dangerous another.
And you may have noted the conversation seems to have shifted to the responsibility of the dog owners, given that dog's are most often "kept".
But I take our point about dog bites. I think I can survive a dachshund bite but don't don't want a Pit Bull chewing on my leg for a couple of hours.
Get some rest, and Stay away from from those Jack-Russell's.

[Tiamat]

It may surprise you all to learn that daschunds, chihuahuas, and Jack Russell terriers are actually the most aggressive breeds of dog, and that pitbulls and Rottweilers are actually of average aggressiveness.

The problem arises not in the breed's aggressiveness, but in its power. A choice between having to deal with a very aggressive chihuahua versus a somewhat aggressive pitbull is an easy choice to make.

But if a pitbull is no more aggressive than the average dog, why do we need to ban them?


http://www.annarbor.com/pets/top-three-a...ets-bites/

But what's their percentage in the 89 attacks mentioned?

[Scrapper]

[tvguy]

<Snip>

IMO Blaming the owner of a pit is like allowing guns without a safety to be sold. And then when someone gets shot we THEN blame the owner.

I think you may have lost our logic card.

Wanna try and write that again?

OF COURSE we blame gun owners who allow guns to be used against people even though the gun is not equipped with a safety device.

My logic is fine. I probably could have said it better. A pit bull is a dangerous dog, more so that most all other because of the damage they do when they attack. (exactly like Rowan said).

So regardless of who the owner is the dog itself is STILL more dangerous than most other breeds.
This isn't even debatable.

So If I have a dog that is more dangerous because of it's breed Then why blame me when it rips some poor slob to pieces. The damage dome is excessive because of the BREED , NOT the owner.

So if we were to sell guns to people that are not safe then why blame the owner of the gun when it goes off?

A pit bull is a gun with out a safety.

[tvguy]

'csrowan' pid='328818' dateline='1390189412']
It may surprise you all to learn that daschunds, chihuahuas, and Jack Russell terriers are actually the most aggressive breeds of dog, and that pitbulls and Rottweilers are actually of average aggressiveness.

The problem arises not in the breed's aggressiveness, but in its power. A choice between having to deal with a very aggressive chihuahua versus a somewhat aggressive pitbull is an easy choice to make.

Who may be surprised? Are you posting to Wonky? I'm sure as hell not surprised. As a matter of fact if this is news to anyone then who ever they are are too ignorant to form an opinion about these animals.
Because those who defend pit bulls LOVE to bring up the fact that other dogs are more aggressive.
And the want to deny or ignore the fact you just stated, It about their power and what happens WHEN they bite.

But if a pitbull is no more aggressive than the average dog, why do we need to ban them?

I'm not sure if your link is supposed to answer the question. But Like I've said we need to REGULATE or ban them because they are aggressive and they do bite like other dogs. But the damage they do is NOT like other dogs. The attacks are bone crushing maulings with horrible results or deaths.

[tvguy]

The article says something about 89 attacks over the last 3 years. Presumably, the majority of which were pit bull attacks. None of which made the news, so we haven't heard about them. But there is an article about an Akita attack.

Here ya Go tia....



Dog bite statistics in Medford 2011-13

89 reports of dog bites over three years.

43 attacks on humans, 24 on dogs, 13 on humans and dogs, and nine on cats.
45 cases, or 51 percent, of the dog bites attributed to pit bull or pit bull mix dogs.
The next most common dog breed involved in a dog bite was a boxer or boxer mix at 5.6 percent, or five cases.
11 fatal attacks on dogs or cats. Of those, eight, or 73 percent, were attributed to pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

Source: Medford Police Department

National statistics on dog bites

251 fatal dog attacks on humans from 2005-12.
Pit bulls were responsible for 151 deaths, or 60 percent.
Rottweilers were responsible for 32 deaths, or 13 percent.

[Tiamat]

The article says something about 89 attacks over the last 3 years. Presumably, the majority of which were pit bull attacks. None of which made the news, so we haven't heard about them. But there is an article about an Akita attack.

Here ya Go tia....



Dog bite statistics in Medford 2011-13

89 reports of dog bites over three years.

43 attacks on humans, 24 on dogs, 13 on humans and dogs, and nine on cats.
45 cases, or 51 percent, of the dog bites attributed to pit bull or pit bull mix dogs.
The next most common dog breed involved in a dog bite was a boxer or boxer mix at 5.6 percent, or five cases.
11 fatal attacks on dogs or cats. Of those, eight, or 73 percent, were attributed to pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

Source: Medford Police Department

National statistics on dog bites

251 fatal dog attacks on humans from 2005-12.
Pit bulls were responsible for 151 deaths, or 60 percent.
Rottweilers were responsible for 32 deaths, or 13 percent.

Interesting that the second highest is a boxer. It's weird, huh? These dogs that are complete babies are also so dangerous. I trust our boxer with my GS. The GS likes to abuse him, but the dog doesn't even react no matter what he does. That doesn't mean we don't know he's an animal and respect that. And it doesn't mean we aren't trying to teach the child better dog interaction behavior.

[tvguy]

The article says something about 89 attacks over the last 3 years. Presumably, the majority of which were pit bull attacks. None of which made the news, so we haven't heard about them. But there is an article about an Akita attack.

Here ya Go tia....



Dog bite statistics in Medford 2011-13

89 reports of dog bites over three years.

43 attacks on humans, 24 on dogs, 13 on humans and dogs, and nine on cats.
45 cases, or 51 percent, of the dog bites attributed to pit bull or pit bull mix dogs.
The next most common dog breed involved in a dog bite was a boxer or boxer mix at 5.6 percent, or five cases.
11 fatal attacks on dogs or cats. Of those, eight, or 73 percent, were attributed to pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

Source: Medford Police Department

National statistics on dog bites

251 fatal dog attacks on humans from 2005-12.
Pit bulls were responsible for 151 deaths, or 60 percent.
Rottweilers were responsible for 32 deaths, or 13 percent.

Interesting that the second highest is a boxer. It's weird, huh? These dogs that are complete babies are also so dangerous. I trust our boxer with my GS. The GS likes to abuse him, but the dog doesn't even react no matter what he does. That doesn't mean we don't know he's an animal and respect that. And it doesn't mean we aren't trying to teach the child better dog interaction behavior.

It only said that boxers were involved in 5.6 percent, or five cases out of 89 total. That's just what happened in Medford over three years. IMO not really a reliable or large enough sample to conclude they are dangerous.

Also you used the word "dangerous" they didn't. Most dogs that bite the most are not really dangerous. like a Cocker Spaniel or a chihuahua.

[tvguy]

I just looked at some national stats and Boxers aren't even in the top ten of the dog biters.

[PonderThis]

My blue heeler mix has bitten several people in his life, 100% of whom have deserved it in his opinion. I'm not saying necessarily a hard bite (I'm not certain anybody got their skin broken) but he did bite them none the less (and not saying more than one bite either).

Bite recipients have included the tow truck driver when he put a chain on the frame of our truck, someone that was twirling a child he thought was just a bit too hard, and the satellite tv installers next door when they wouldn't say hi to him or explain what they were doing on his property. A drunk who insisted on sticking his hands in our truck window to pet him while I was walking away. A suspected marijuana thief from the patch next door was an intended recipient but he didn't quite make it.

[Tiamat]

The article says something about 89 attacks over the last 3 years. Presumably, the majority of which were pit bull attacks. None of which made the news, so we haven't heard about them. But there is an article about an Akita attack.

Here ya Go tia....



Dog bite statistics in Medford 2011-13

89 reports of dog bites over three years.

43 attacks on humans, 24 on dogs, 13 on humans and dogs, and nine on cats.
45 cases, or 51 percent, of the dog bites attributed to pit bull or pit bull mix dogs.
The next most common dog breed involved in a dog bite was a boxer or boxer mix at 5.6 percent, or five cases.
11 fatal attacks on dogs or cats. Of those, eight, or 73 percent, were attributed to pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

Source: Medford Police Department

National statistics on dog bites

251 fatal dog attacks on humans from 2005-12.
Pit bulls were responsible for 151 deaths, or 60 percent.
Rottweilers were responsible for 32 deaths, or 13 percent.

Interesting that the second highest is a boxer. It's weird, huh? These dogs that are complete babies are also so dangerous. I trust our boxer with my GS. The GS likes to abuse him, but the dog doesn't even react no matter what he does. That doesn't mean we don't know he's an animal and respect that. And it doesn't mean we aren't trying to teach the child better dog interaction behavior.

It only said that boxers were involved in 5.6 percent, or five cases out of 89 total. That's just what happened in Medford over three years. IMO not really a reliable or large enough sample to conclude they are dangerous.

Also you used the word "dangerous" they didn't. Most dogs that bite the most are not really dangerous. like a Cocker Spaniel or a chihuahua.

I realized it was Medford. Found it surprising though.

[tvguy]

Well guess what. My dog was attacked by a pit bull yesterday. An neutered male and he went straight for her throat.
It was an acquaintance who wanted me to come over for some advice on a building.
He said my dog could come in to the yard because he would put his in the house. Stupid me I said OK. So of course someone let his dog out and it made a bee line at my dog.
Luckily for everyone including the pit( I carry a a good sized knife) his owner jumped on him and pulled him off very quickly.
My dog is at least twice as big with a huge head and neck with a lot of loose skin and fur. So she didn't even get hurt. A smaller dog who knows.

The owner of the Pit said that's what the dog always does to ANY other dog. He said he hated that and that he would never have another pit bull. The wife made excuses. The dog lives inside mostly with tiny children.

BTW I said no harm no foul, not their fault. This is just what pits do, especially unneuterd males.

[tealeaf]

My dog is at least twice as big with a huge head and neck with a lot of loose skin and fur. So she didn't even get hurt.

I'm glad she's ok, tvguy.

[Scrapper]

I bet that made your heart jump and your BP rise! Scary stuff!

[tvguy]

My dog is at least twice as big with a huge head and neck with a lot of loose skin and fur. So she didn't even get hurt.

I'm glad she's ok, tvguy.

Me too, Thanks. She has never EVER been aggressive toward another dog unless they started something.
Normally a male dog doesn't want to fight a female. Pits are not EFing normal.

[Wonky]

Well guess what. My dog was attacked by a pit bull yesterday. An neutered male and he went straight for her throat.
It was an acquaintance who wanted me to come over for some advice on a building.
He said my dog could come in to the yard because he would put his in the house. Stupid me I said OK. So of course someone let his dog out and it made a bee line at my dog.
Luckily for everyone including the pit( I carry a a good sized knife) his owner jumped on him and pulled him off very quickly.
My dog is at least twice as big with a huge head and neck with a lot of loose skin and fur. So she didn't even get hurt. A smaller dog who knows.

The owner of the Pit said that's what the dog always does to ANY other dog. He said he hated that and that he would never have another pit bull. The wife made excuses. The dog lives inside mostly with tiny children.

BTW I said no harm no foul, not their fault. This is just what pits do, especially unneuterd males.

No, NOT no harm no foul.
The Pit attacked. A fact.
The OWNER is responsible. The owner had many other options. That the owner "didn't think" his Pit would attack is lame excuse.
We really MUST stop blaming the dogs.

[tvguy]

Well guess what. My dog was attacked by a pit bull yesterday. An neutered male and he went straight for her throat.
It was an acquaintance who wanted me to come over for some advice on a building.
He said my dog could come in to the yard because he would put his in the house. Stupid me I said OK. So of course someone let his dog out and it made a bee line at my dog.
Luckily for everyone including the pit( I carry a a good sized knife) his owner jumped on him and pulled him off very quickly.
My dog is at least twice as big with a huge head and neck with a lot of loose skin and fur. So she didn't even get hurt. A smaller dog who knows.

The owner of the Pit said that's what the dog always does to ANY other dog. He said he hated that and that he would never have another pit bull. The wife made excuses. The dog lives inside mostly with tiny children.

BTW I said no harm no foul, not their fault. This is just what pits do, especially unneuterd males.

No, NOT no harm no foul.
The Pit attacked. A fact.
The OWNER is responsible. The owner had many other options.
We really MUST stop blaming the dogs.

That the owner "didn't think" his Pit would attack is lame excuse.

Where are you getting that? The owner said no such thing.


The owner of the Pit put the dog in his house because he knew it would attack if it had the chance. I figured that also because of their reputation plus this guy had told me this before.
So if anything it was MY fault. He has the legal right to own one of these screwed in the head animals.
HE didn't do anything wrong as far as pits go. The Pit did what pits do SOOOO often.

The dog is almost always on the deck and it has a gate. So I thought even IF someone let the dog out of the that it wouldn't get off the deck because I've never seen it off the deck.

We really MUST stop blaming the dogs.

The dog is overly aggressive toward other animals even though it's a house pet. I don't have any reason to believe this this owner made it that way. He hates the fact that it is that way.