no but thats my point you cant prove the other either. There are no accurate stats on attacks by any breed - only a total number of dog bites so there is no way to tell what breeds are responsible. You can take what you want from whats reported but it doesnt mean anything if you arent gettng the whole picture, and if the "other" breed attacks are not represented int he press.

I am not blinkered in thinking that these dogs are not responisble for ferocious attacks but the statistics cannot be proven one way or another.

Some of the listings for deaths attributed to dogs include cases where a human has actually murdered someone with a dog in the vicinity. I read one where a child was strangled by getting tangled in a pitbulls chain, another where the dog was reported as pitbull and was in fact an american bulldog proven by the american kennel club and yet still listed as a pitbull on the stats, so its by no means a good way of representing the actual numbers.


Also pitbulls are a popular dog in the states so it stands to reason that like lab numbers in the Uk, they could be held responsible for a larger than average number of bites due to just being a more popular pet? just a thought

but if it was bullmastiffs that were under the same threat would yo feel the same ? and where would it end ? it still wouldnt actually solve the problem of irresponsible and neglectful ownershp

I agree with the notion of punish the deed not the breed..........BUT surely if the most damaging dogs, i.e those with the inherant behaviours instilled, and conformation for such, were no longer here, wouldn't that somehow serve as going some way to making us safer ?

I've been seriously mauled by a dog and spent 2 weeks in hospital and many, many months wrapped in bandages, on allsorts of drugs, then spent many years trying to overcome my fear of dogs and the nerve damage done, so I dont speak as a innocent bystander ! Only the fact that I was considerably larger than I am now with lots more weight on me, saved my arteries !

But I feel that the type of dog it is definitely plays a huge part in how damaged someone is, whether that be seriously bitten or killed !!

When a PB attacks, is it not destined to continue until it 'fights to the death' ?

If a Lab attacked someone, surely it's more likely to stop, after the initial 'attack' !! Maybe Im wrong, but I look into the inherant behaviours, as well as the owners.

Labs are bound to have more incidents, there are nearly 50,000 of them born each year, compared to the amount of most other breeders, surely speaks volumes !

Also I cant find anything to suggest that Labs have 'mauled' or killed', just maimed, which is very different altogether !

Hi, sorry to hear what you've been through. I agree with everything you've said. Also never knew (previous poster) that attacks by dogs weren't registered according to breed. No wonder they can decide what to do!!

Steve: I also know what you are saying - I have changed my walking route to a more public route as have heard of a dog (will not name the breed, not necessary) running loose and attacking dogs). Why should I do this? It annoys me so much, I just want to find out who the owner is.....

not necessarily - fighting dogs in the pit often dont fight to the death,
but i do agree that these TYPE of dogs have the capacity to do more damage but then that would mean that ALL bull breeds have the same capacity so should they all be treated to the same punishment?
is it different though - surely a dog attacking is a dog attacking ( not talking about nips) if a dog actually attacks it shouldnt matter what breed it is ?

Not all bull breeds attack people though ! that's the point !


Yes a dog attack is a dog attack, but surely to limit the damage is a sensible thing to do !!

No, it deosn't matter in the eyes of the public what breed it is, but trust me, when your being attacked it damned well matters !

I would rather be bitten by a GSD than a PB ! I know the difference in damage and surely THAT's what important !

I know I have more chance of 'SURVIVAL' being bitten by a dog other than a PB !

I would actually Danni.They banned handguns after Dunblaine for the good of everyone even though the vast majority of owners were law abiding.

Like everything in life-it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil it for everyone.

but not all pitbulls attack people either ???



if you are going down that route then you have to look at in size over everything - so if a baby was bitten by a yorkshire terier then it would do far more damage than if that same yorkie attacked an adult?

so where do you draw the line ??

anyway speaking of babies i have one that will probably be up soon so am off to bed !!!

not sure if i beleive that steve, if someone tried to take bruno off me i would fight for him and i beleive you would do the same with vegas ? if he hadnt done anything to anyone and it was just hype due to attacks by dogs ???

there is nothing that would stop me from fighting for bruno...if he was innocent of anything.

thats like saying all drivers are banned due to some crap ones ??

But there needs to be a line drawn.

Sorry to harp on about time gone by, but the only reason
that ANY dogs are banned is because of the media frenzy back in the early 1990s which pushed the law through parliament.

It was the wrong target.