'Ax Men' star's daughter mauled to death by dog

[Softballkid]

" are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study,"

Wow global warming science applied to dogs!

That one bit tells me that he was not studying ALL attacks, just those resulting in severe mauling and death. Which leaves out the vast majority of attacks. Check the CDC site, you'll see what I mean.

I won't argue that they don't do more damage. Hell I won't even argue that they may be more prone to incidents due to mental instability issues given the current poor breeding practices and such by those who have no idea what they are doing. Even Dals suffered from this after that stupid Disney movie... LOL.

But these three breeds sure as heck did not account for 74% of ALL dog attacks.

These breeds are not a new thing. They've been around a lot longer than they've had a bad rap. The bad rap happened in the last 20 or so years. So what changed? Popularity with the wrong people. People owning them for the wrong reasons.

I agree with most of the things you are saying, but being an outsider just reading this, you are not going to change the minds of those set in their ways on these breeds. They all have a right to feel the way they do, and you, myself and some other have a right to feel the way we do.

I had a Rotti for 3 years, never bit anyone, never did he worry me around anyone. He got to big for our set up, so he went else where for the benefit of him, and a year later he ended up with someone else due to them having to move. He stayed with said person (I won't mention her name but in my mind she is a savior) for a year or so and she adopted him out and he has been fine since. Said person told me straight up from the get go, 1 mistake, he's DONE!! Needless to say, I recieved pics from them not too long ago, and the whole 9 yard story about him... He looks GREAT, and he is doing GREAT!

PS- Wife and I had a daughter while we had him, he never ONCE acted different around her, when I layed on the floor with her infront of me, he sniffed, and layed down on the other side of her, we went for walks, he walked right beside the stroller.

So it's not ALL of them, you only hear about the "ones", how many THOUSANDS, if not millions of them live out a full life without any incident you never hear a thing about. But 1 in 1,000 does something wrong, and every wants to crucify the whole breed.

I am a firm believer in: blame the deed, not the breed

 

[Nucklesack]

" are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study,"

Wow global warming science applied to dogs!

That one bit tells me that he was not studying ALL attacks, just those resulting in severe mauling and death. Which leaves out the vast majority of attacks. Check the CDC site, you'll see what I mean.

I won't argue that they don't do more damage. Hell I won't even argue that they may be more prone to incidents due to mental instability issues given the current poor breeding practices and such by those who have no idea what they are doing. Even Dals suffered from this after that stupid Disney movie... LOL.

But these three breeds sure as heck did not account for 74% of ALL dog attacks.

These breeds are not a new thing. They've been around a lot longer than they've had a bad rap. The bad rap happened in the last 20 or so years. So what changed? Popularity with the wrong people. People owning them for the wrong reasons.

I think i understand what your arguing.

Its not that the Pit or Rott does more damage, being bigger dogs with (supposedly*) more power any attack from them will include more damage. Arguably these dogs dont even compare withe Akita, which is also known for being a "Viscious Dog**", attacks from these also contain considerable damage, but the breed isnt as popularized as others.

Your argument is that these dogs dont "attack" any more than any other breed. Ask a vet which breeds they get leery around. Some would be surprised that Dalmatians, Golden Retrievers and Cocker Spaniels are the ones most commonly mentioned. It is supported by this CDC article on Dog Bite Attacks (near the bottom of page 2)

Click here for a listing of Dog Bite articles, this is from a "Bull" breed site, but it lists other breeds that have been reported attacking.




*Check out the bite strength of the Irish Wolfhound for power
**Not labeling the dog, just commenting on the hysteria

 

[itsbob]

" are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study,"

Wow global warming science applied to dogs!

That one bit tells me that he was not studying ALL attacks, just those resulting in severe mauling and death. Which leaves out the vast majority of attacks. Check the CDC site, you'll see what I mean.


.

Read the report. He only counted attacks from dogs whose lineage could be proven (purebreed or single cross), and didn't count attacks from dogs that were trained TOO attack.. ie Police Dogs, and guard dogs..


Even the lowly Jack Russel Terrier made the list.

SO all told, all attacks by purebreed dogs.. The list is around 100 breeds, and 3 of those STILL account for 74% of the attacks...

"Attacks doing bodily harm" includes all fatalities, maimings, and other
injuries requiring extensive hospital treatment.

And these would be the attacks I'm concerned about.


2200 attacks.. give or take 100 breeds listed who have attacked, and 1100 of the attacks are from one breed..

 

[Chasey_Lane]

This thread has me wondering. There is a group of boys who walk from a neighboring development into my neighbor's yard and into my development. I've seen them tease my boxer when he's been outside. My husband has told them repeatedly not to walk too close to our fence and definitely not to tease the dog. If one of those boys gets hurt, we would be to blame. So this makes me wonder just how many dog bites/attacks are the result of abuse?

 

[itsbob]

This thread has me wondering. There is a group of boys who walk from a neighboring development into my neighbor's yard and into my development. I've seen them tease my boxer when he's been outside. My husband has told them repeatedly not to walk too close to our fence and definitely not to tease the dog. If one of those boys gets hurt, we would be to blame. So this makes me wonder just how many dog bites/attacks are the result of Michael Vick?

:fixed:

 

[TurboK9]

Read the report. He only counted attacks from dogs whose lineage could be proven (purebreed or single cross), and didn't count attacks from dogs that were trained TOO attack.. ie Police Dogs, and guard dogs..


Even the lowly Jack Russel Terrier made the list.

SO all told, all attacks by purebreed dogs.. The list is around 100 breeds, and 3 of those STILL account for 74% of the attacks...

And these would be the attacks I'm concerned about.


attacks.. give or take 100 breeds listed who have attacked, and 1100 of the attacks are from one breed..

Right. Because he raped the data to fit his own agenda.

"Dog bites send nearly 368,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (1,008 per day)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nonfatal Dog Bite–Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments — United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:605-610. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is published by the CDC.

If we are talking purely temperament, you have to include the other 366,000 incidents per annum. He included a mere .5% of all reported bites, and yet somehow his results indicate those 3 breeds bite more frequently? What?

Given that according to this study these dogs do massive damage when they bite, and given that they are easily identified, and given that both those mean that ther attacks must have been included in the study... Doesn't that mean these three breeds are accountable for less then .7% of all dog bites in the US per annum? Pit Bulls a mere .35%?



You can spin it any way you want. The maximum # of dog bite related fatalities in a year in the US was 33. A shame for the victims, but big friggin' deal. You are far more dangerous just driving your car. I say we ban you from driving .

 

[itsbob]

Right. Because he raped the data to fit his own agenda.

"Dog bites send nearly 368,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (1,008 per day)." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nonfatal Dog Bite–Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments — United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:605-610. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is published by the CDC.

If we are talking purely temperament, you have to include the other 366,000 incidents per annum. He included a mere .5% of all reported bites, and yet somehow his results indicate those 3 breeds bite more frequently? What?

Given that according to this study these dogs do massive damage when they bite, and given that they are easily identified, and given that both those mean that ther attacks must have been included in the study... Doesn't that mean these three breeds are accountable for less then .7% of all dog bites in the US per annum? Pit Bulls a mere .35%?



You can spin it any way you want. The maximum # of dog bite related fatalities in a year in the US was 33. A shame for the victims, but big friggin' deal. You are far more dangerous just driving your car. I say we ban you from driving .

No it means from the criteria set for type of injury they account for 74%..

Which would mean if you extrapolate that date, they would more than likely be responsible for 74% of ALL bites.. from purebreed and single cross breed dogs.


You're comparing apples to oranges.. 22,000 attacks that resulted in maiming, death, or significant hosptial stays.. to >300,000 total bites, that may have resulted in the application of a bandaid.

33 fatalities isn't a huge statistic (unless one of those is your child), but if a single breed is responsible for 17 of them, what a difference eradicating that one breed would make..

His research makes sense, the injuries that were counted, the breeds involved etc.. You can argue it anyway you want.

 

[TurboK9]

Thought this was interesting... From 1999 in TX. http://www.dogbitelaw.com/TX-study-1999.pdf

Look at the chart on page 1... Chows lead the list, Rotts are second, then GSD's, APBT, ChowX, then... Lab! and Blue Heeler?

The problem I have with these stats, regardless of the position they support... well, I can't tell you how many people have looked at my cropped and docked Dobermann and said "Nice Rottweiler". LOL.

Even animal control people are fallible and mis identify breeds. Cane Corso? Pit Bull. Belgian Terv? Long haired GSD. Manchester Terrier? Well that's a young Dobermann. Or big Min Pin. It's a mess. Simply put, there are no wholely accurate statistics. Most people even that work with dogs, could tell you a Patterdale from a JRT.

 

[Bean]

More than likely the dog was just being a dog. I highly doubt the dog was actively thinking "I'm gonna kill this little girl", it's a dog, not a human. Most bites/maulings, 'vicious' has nothing to do with it. It's either a prey or defense drive response, and lacking training, any dog will respond to similar stimuli the same way. The seperating factor between breeds is drive level and physical power, not 'viciousness'.

To immediately assume the dog was 'vicious' is to apply human standards to an animal and thus become part of the overall problem. Very few people and even fewer pet owners actual understand what prompts most dog bite incidents. Even fewer people care to learn.

Dogs are very simple critters, they are easy to manipulate and mold. But you have to understand 'dog' to do it. The vast majority of pet owners have no clue.

Far sadder that humans are stupid enough to leave a small child unsupervised with an animal they do not ruly understand.

We come from two different worlds. If a dog kills a child, It is vicious. No question.

 

[Baja28]

A coworker told me this morning the he was attacked yesterday evening while standing on the street after jogging. Any bets on the breed???? That''s right another Pitt attack. When it let go of him, it attacked a bishon. Owner never even asked if he was ok. Well this one is now locked up for the next 10 days.

You fools (especially you with kids) go right ahead keeping these things. I sincerely hope I'm not reading about your child being mauled by "the good dog who wouldn't harm anyone".

 

[TurboK9]

A coworker told me this morning the he was attacked yesterday evening while standing on the street after jogging. Any bets on the breed???? That''s right another Pitt attack. When it let go of him, it attacked a bishon. Owner never even asked if he was ok. Well this one is now locked up for the next 10 days.

You fools (especially you with kids) go right ahead keeping these things. I sincerely hope I'm not reading about your child being mauled by "the good dog who wouldn't harm anyone".

Well for what it's worth, if it were my dog it'd already be dead. I gots a zer-0 tolerance policy for that crap with my dogs. Of course, I don't own a Pit either... :shrug:

 

[TurboK9]

This thread has me wondering. There is a group of boys who walk from a neighboring development into my neighbor's yard and into my development. I've seen them tease my boxer when he's been outside. My husband has told them repeatedly not to walk too close to our fence and definitely not to tease the dog. If one of those boys gets hurt, we would be to blame. So this makes me wonder just how many dog bites/attacks are the result of abuse?

A LOT. Kids, and a lot of adults, don't respect dogs at all. And of course, the dogs get blamed wrongfully a lot of the time because lil' Johnny would NEVER poke the doggy in the eye with a stick.

 

[TurboK9]

No it means from the criteria set for type of injury they account for 74%..

Which would mean if you extrapolate that date, they would more than likely be responsible for 74% of ALL bites.. from purebreed and single cross breed dogs.


You're comparing apples to oranges.. 22,000 attacks that resulted in maiming, death, or significant hosptial stays.. to >300,000 total bites, that may have resulted in the application of a bandaid.

33 fatalities isn't a huge statistic (unless one of those is your child), but if a single breed is responsible for 17 of them, what a difference eradicating that one breed would make..

His research makes sense, the injuries that were counted, the breeds involved etc.. You can argue it anyway you want.

I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying you can't use a cross section of .5% of all incidents and .1% of all dogs of a certain type, and use that to predict or define temperament in total. It's ludicrous. AGAIN! I'm not refuting that the dogs are powerful and can create very severe injuries or death...

I'm saying you can't cross section 2000 dogs, from 2000 very specific occurrences, and extrapulate the temperament of the other hundred thousand of so. You can't possibly know what caused each bite, whether they were all unprovoked. Chances are, most were cases of people being stupid.

 

[itsbob]

I'm saying you can't cross section 2000 dogs, from 2000 very specific occurrences, and extrapulate the temperament of the other hundred thousand of so. You can't possibly know what caused each bite, whether they were all unprovoked. Chances are, most were cases of people being stupid.

Actually you can, he did, and what I see looks like sound research.