Mikeinsmd
New Member
KK-2Ken King said:Mike, You know how some people spell lightening instead of lightning, well it is vicious and not viscious. The reason the pit type attacks are more severe (which is what I think you are getting at) is because they are a larger and stronger animal. I have seen some real vicious super-small dogs that just didn’t have the ass to do any damage. Doesn’t make them any less vicious now does it? More then 5 million people get bit by dogs each year . Of those about 1 million have to seek medical attention. About 1/3 of those are serious enough to require emergency room visits. And there is one fatality for every ¼ to ½ million bites. This is pretty much it as to what’s going on with dogs, is it really a problem?
Mike-0
![neener :neener: :neener:](/styles/somd_smilies/neener.gif)
Nahhh...that's not my point Ken. It's a given that a larger dog can do more damage than a smaller dog. I'm trying to convey that Pitts, although a very small percentage (1-3%) of dogs in the USA, are responsible for over 50% of the most vicious attacks. That's all.
The Pitt owners continue to defend and portray the dogs as friendly, harmless. and wrongly accused. Well maybe their dog is friendly and harmless but Pitts (and Rotties) as a whole are not and their bad reputation is justified.
Is it really a problem? No, but I know when I see a Pitt or Rott, I will steer clear simply based on these facts.