Hi Mini,
Stats are unreliable,even those from the CDC,using research from media reports will never be accurate.

This is what a court in OHIO in the US heard in 2006.
Although some Statistics were presented in a CDC Report,which listed different dog breeds involved with human fatalities for the entire US,these Statistics were from 1979-1996.Most experts acknowleged that these were just simply bare Statistics,without reference to the total numbers of dogs in each breed population.
During the hearing the trial court acknowleged that since these numbers were simply bare statistics without reference to the total numbers of dogs in each breed the Statistics had no real relevance or meaning.

In addition,testimony was presented that the situations and reasons for any dog attacks,information which was not included in the CDC report, were much more important to the purpose of preventing further injuries than bare numbers.One expert testified that most fatal attacks on children could be attributed to lack of parental supervision,rather than inheretly vicious dogs.

Although Dr Wright testified he believed Pitbulls have some sort of trigger mechanism,which makes there behaviour unpredictable and they give off no warning signals,he acknowleged he had done no studies and had no scientific data,proof or any other evidence in support of his theory.
The other experts dismissed this theory and agreed that all dogs give off signals which may be ignored or unrecognised by people.

After considering the evidence the court found that Pitbulls are not,as a breed more dangerous than other breeds.

I find the situation with Pitbulls extemely sad,they are victims of bad press time and time again.

If you are referring to the ATTS stats SBT, then I agree. They are interesting but have little relevance to this thread.

The ATTS testing method seems to be based on a Temperament Assessment Test devised here in the UK by Graham Mabbutt. His test included many disciplines, some of which have been used by the ATTS. They have included ones like the guntest, and reaction to threatening situations. These are naturally going to be disciplines that dogs selectively bred for strong nerves, stoiscism and freindly disposition to strangers, are going to excel at. All qualities necessary for fighting in the pit.

Guarding breeds and particularly herding breeds have very different breeding selectional criteria and naturally are going to show different reactions and more likely to 'fail'.

But probably the most significant part for me is the lack of any testing for behaviour towards dogs (which Mabbutt included). Ie. there is no evaluation of within species aggression. I think if this were included we would see very different stats for the Pitbulls.

The Mabbutt test was designed as an assessment which graded the dogs into four categories of temperament type - A, B, C and D with A being the most dominant and D the least. It was not meant as a pass/fail test which to me makes nonsense of the whole thing.

With my dogs using the ATTS temperament Test I reckon all of them would fail! Yet I wouldn't consider them to be a danger to a human being at all.
Becky

Some statistics are more reliable than others, I don't quote media, neither would I put the statistics compiled by someone who had their own agenda/was trying to sell a book and goods against the actual figures of fatalities which are irrefutable and compiled by a number of well respected and impartial organisations dedicated to promoting safety and health.

Sal you seem to be arguing here that you don't think PBT can be dangerous in certain circumstances and more so than some other breeds which is the thing many of us agree on and are stating here.

Can I ask are you agreeing with HayleySBT who stated in the thread that lead on to this debate ..

Quote:
Bull Breeds are more reliable with humans than a Collie or some other breeds! tested, proved and fact!


a statement I can find no evidence for at all.
..Sal If you had small children and heard a family was moving next door to you with an unsocialised dog, would you be more scared if it was a PBT than a collie or some other breed.

It is know that in a confrontational situation where an unsocialised dog is afraid or stressed, the 'flight or fight' response comes into play and some breeds/dogs are more likely to run and some to fight. I think because of inherent factors most PBT would stay and fight and in doing so would cause more damage than many other breeds who would run, or if they did fight because of their less powerful bodies and jaws would do less damage . This is common sense to me and to most people I would think , are you disagreeing with this?

If you are disagreeing there is no logic in your disagreement,how can a dog who runs away and doesn't fight cause as much damage as one who stays and fights.

If you are not disagreeing you are concurring with many of us that in certain circumstances PBT can be more dangerous than other dogs.

Minihaha,I remember some fool next door to where we used to live said to my mum once, You know there will be mixed raced people moving in next door and im scared for my children, My mother turned around and said that was stupid and pathetic to judge someone on how they looked, yet this white woman husband had be in jail for murder and was living with her now. So if a collie, Pit bull, Yorkshire terrier or any other breed was next door to me that was unsocialised, I would be wary for my children and myself, i wouldnt trust one more than the other.

Hysterical and ignorant people Minihaha would freak out at an American Pit Bull Terrier over any other breed, treat all dogs the same as thou all can bite and be respectful, because I wouldnt want to say stay away from that dog as it looks like that, then my child play with a dog that looks different and my child gets bitten. That would be bad parenting.

I love dogs and I will not stand for any breed being singled out as dangerous and to be pts for nothing and being innoccent, its a well known fact that Pit bulls where bred for fighting but also love of humans.

Mini,
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody,
I have my own opinion and that is Pitbulls the same has any other breed can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

An untrained,unsocialised dog with irresponsible owners is as we all know a disaster waiting to happen,regardless of breed.

Why do we never hear of the Pitbulls that work as PAT dogs,search and rescue dogs etc......Why do we never hear the sucessful stories like those that have saved lives,because it isn't really news is it?

In my opinion they as a breed are no more dangerous than any other breed,
I saw an attack first hand on my son by a bullmastiff,a big powerful dog,that did a tremendous amount of damage.

I wouldn't want any unsocialised untrained dog next door to me to be honest...

I don't think we will ever get an accurate report or stats of dog attacks,we need to look at the factors surrounding the attacks,and why they happened,including testing dogs for drugs...
We should also remember that Fatal dog attacks are Rare.

I think it's extemely sad and in years to come i can see the breed's sad fate...all because of humans.

Yes, I agree but the important point here I feel is that these statistics represent actual fatalities (proven facts) caused by dogs and pit bulls are by far the highest killer

This is not about demonising pit bulls the question is "Are they dangerous" and Because of all of the proven fatalities, I have to say that I believe they can be, and I actually hoped I'd be wrong here as I love all dogs.

It's an entirely different debate about the reasons why they may be and the circumstances around it. I would agree we need to look at the much broader picture as to why these attacks have and are happening.

Sal good post, Minihaha can i ask why does everyone have to disagree with me? Its you who is saying Its more dangerous than any other breed of dog, where as im being logical and saying of that is no more dangerous than any other breed.

Sadly sal has seen the effects of a large powerful breed attack her son (very sorry to hear this sal and i hope there is no lasting effect on your boy poor) So yes a Pitbull is more dangerous than a Yorkshire when its attacks BUT the are no more dangerous than when a Neo Mastiff, Or Bull Mastiff attacks, SO PLEASE stop singling the American Pit Bull Terrier out and understand that its the same thoughts that you have, that has other people, along with media and politics to put the American Pit Bull Terrier on the DDA and BSL scheme's world wide, which has killed many innocent dogs.

I honestly thought even thou you have a personal problem with me Minihaha, that you didnt think like this, as i know you are a dog lover and im infact alittle upset you believe a Pitbull is more dangerous than any other breed.

I find all this very sad I wouldve expected this level of ignorance from people who dont like/own/know dogs, but not from knowledgeble dog-loving forum members.

What chance does the pitbull have, if even sensible dog owners condemn it ? Have none of us learned anything about dog ownership in the years that we,ve had our dogs, dont we all realise by now that its the human race thats to blame, not a specific breed??

Im stunned to be honest.

Im also pretty shocked at the blatent singling-out of one poster, by another poster. It seems this personal dislike could be spurring them on to keep disagreeing and possibly masking their real thoughts, as I dont believe any sensible dog lover can really feel that biased to a breed of dog, surely??

The question is whether pitbulls are more dangerous than any other breed, and based on what has been said here then we have to conclude that yes in certain circumstances they can be more dangerous than other breeds.
I wouldn't say that they were exactly the same as all other breeds as that isn't a level playing field as all breeds have been bred for different characteristics but I believe that there are some other breeds that are also dangerous in certain circumstances such as the Rottweiler as that seems to be another one high on the fatality list.
Whether this means that a breed should be banned is another matter. If there was a safeguard that these dogs will not end up n the hands of total idiots who allow their dogs to get out of control (although many attacks appear to be unprovoked and with no previous signs of aggession) then it would be safe, but that simply isn't possible.
Becky