Third-grade Girl Attacked by Pit Bull

While, I do feel sorry for the nine year old and, am glad that she is ok. It is the owners responsibility to train their dog so this never happens. It is not only pitbulls.

In January 1995, a 2-year-old boy in South Dakota wandered into a neighbor's yard, where he was attacked and killed by two chained wolf-German shepherd hybrids. In September 1995, a 3-week-old girl in Pennsylvania was killed in her crib by the family Chow Chow while her parents slept in the next room. In March 1996, an 86-year-old woman in Tennessee went outside of her home to check the weather and was fatally mauled by two rottweilers owned by a neighbor; the dogs had attacked and injured the woman 1 month before the fatal attack.

TABLE 1. Dog breeds and crossbreeds* involved in dog-bite-related fatalities, by 2-year period -- United States, 1979-1996 +
=========================================================================================================================================================================
Category 1979-1980 1981-1982 1983-1984 1985-1986 1987-1988 1989-1990 1991-1992 1993-1994 1995-1996 Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breed
"Pit bull" 2 5 10 9 12 8 6 5 3 60
Rottweiler 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 10 10 29
German shepherd 2 1 5 1 1 5 2 0 2 19
"Husky" 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 14
Alaskan malamute 2 0 3 1 0 2 3 1 0 12
Doberman Pinscher 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 8
Chow Chow 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 8
Great Dane 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6
St. Bernard 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Akita 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 4

Crossbreed
Wolf hybrid 0 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 14
German shepherd 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 2 11
"Pit bull" 0 1 0 3 2 & 3 1 1 0 10 &
"Husky" 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 6
Alaskan malamute 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3
Rottweiler 0 0 0 0 1 & 1 0 1 1 3 &
Chow Chow 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3
No. incidents for which breed known 10 20 27 24 22 35 24 25 22 199
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data shown only for breeds and crossbreeds involved in four or more fatalities. Each breed contributing to the crossbreed is counted only once.
+ For 1979-1994, data obtained from the Humane Society of the United States registry, NEXIS database accounts, and death certificates.
& One fatality also involved a single breed.
=========================================================================================================================================================================
Responsible dog owners consider their dogs to be canine citizens. They don't permit them to behave in any way that infringes on the rights of other citizens.
***Myth: "Some dogs are genetically predisposed to attack."

While we would love to dispute every angle of that kind of erroneous comment, we don't need to. We can easily disprove the misguided notion that some kind of genetic abnormality is what causes dogs to attack, by simply looking at the actual dogs involved in serious biting incidents.

The Lab/Beagle cross and the purebred Doberman involved in biting incidents 5,000 km and 10 years apart do not share relevant genes, other than those that make them both dogs. The purebred Dalmation that killed another dog and the Golden Retriever that killed a child are not genetically related, either. In fact, even the purebred Rottweiler that killed a child in one province and the purebred Rottweiler that attacked a person in another province share no common ancestors in their pedigrees. In short, the dogs involved in biting incidents are no more closely related than dogs in general.

There is no scientific evidence for a genetic cause for aggression, and there is no evidence that the dogs involved in attacks share relevant genetic information, even if there were.

The largest study of its kind, in which many of the dogs involved dog bite-related fatalities were examined by veterinarians, found that the dogs who'd killed people had no physical, mental or physiological abnormalities. All tests came back normal, including bloodwork and brain examination.

Still need more proof?

As a general estimate, let's say that, out of approximately 5 million dogs in Canada, 50 dogs are involved in serious biting incidents each year. (To clarify, that would be 0.001% of all dogs; leaving 99.999% of Canadian dogs not involved in attacks.) If we look at those 50 dogs, individually, we find they represent a wide range of shapes, sizes, breeds, and original breed purposes. Clearly, there is no one breed or size or original breed purpose involved in serious biting incidents.

In fact, no breed of dog has more than 0.1% of it's members involved in serious attacks. It would be absurd to say that 0.1% of the dogs in any breed are 'merely fulfilling their genetic destiny' by attacking someone or something, and that the 99.9% of all dogs who never attack, are behaving somehow "abnormally" by not behaving aggressively. Most dogs never attack anyone, and that includes the often maligned breeds, too! If any breed were 'genetically predisposed to attack', certainly more than 0.1% of them would!

In regards to the theory that aggression can be either inherited or genetically linked, what unique, relevant genetic information could possibly be shared by:

* the Labrador/Rottweiler cross (Sporting/Working Group) that killed one of its owner's children,
* the Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier Group) that killed a neighbour's dog,
* the purebred Golden Retriever (Sporting Group) that killed its owner's child,
* the Border Collie (AKC, Herding Group) that viciously attacked a neighbour's dog,
* the purebred Pomerananian (Toy Group) that killed the owner's child,
* or the purebred Bullmastiff (Working Group) that killed one of its owner's child's friends?

In fact, the ACTUAL dogs involved in attacks do not share any unique genetic information with each other, besides that which makes them dogs.

We need not look any further than the lack of any supporting evidence for shared genetic pathology in dogs that have actually attacked. They simply aren't any more closely related than the dog population in general.

However, just to completely refute the idea that genetics are involved in attacks, we've broken it down further.

If we group those dogs by breed, we find that even the dogs of the same breed are not genetically related in any meaningful way. They don't share any relevant common ancestors on their pedigrees, and therefore have not inherited some kind of aberrant gene that might explain their inappropriate behaviour.

If they're purebred dogs, we can completely refute the notion that those dogs involved in attacks share some kind of genetic cause for their aggression. By definition, purebred dogs are not crossed with other breeds. To explain a shared genetic cause in dogs from two different breeds, the gene would have to have been inherited from the breeds' shared ancestor, decades (even centuries) earlier, before those individual breeds were even created. No reasonable person would suggest that a gene would lie dormant for centuries in all its descendants, then suddenly cause aggressive behaviours in one individual dog, so many years later. It's preposterous!

Next is the issue of original breed purpose as causational. In fact, whether the attack was against a person or another animal, every single breed of dog has been guilty of serious biting incidents of one kind or another. When a Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier group) attacks another dog, it is for the same reason that a German Shepherd Dog (Herding Group), Rottweiler (Working Group), or an American Pit Bull Terrier (UKC, Terrier Group) might attack another dog.

The overwhelming majority of dogs who attack other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting. That is important enough to repeat: Most of the dogs ACTUALLY involved in unprovoked attacks on other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting! This thoroughly disproves the notion that breeds originally bred for fighting are somehow destined to attack other dogs.

(Even in the face of these facts, we still find people who truly believe that some breeds are inherently aggressive towards other dogs. Thankfully, those who PROPERLY socialize their dogs...instead of believing such outdated myths, and failing to PROPERLY socialize them with other dogs...are rewarded with dogs who are as well-socialized as any dog from any other breed. No honest person can deny that thousands of well-socialized 'pit bulls' and other so-called "fighting" breeds enjoy thousands of dog parks around the world, everyday, without incident.)

Regarding taking 'pit bulls' to dog parks, Animal Planet's Steve Dale says, "...the majority of ‘pit bulls’ can make peace and not war with other dogs, if they are well socialized..." ...as can any breed of dog.

Suzanne Clothier, author of "If A Dog's Prayers Were Answered Bones Would Rain from the Sky: Deepening Our Relationships with Dogs" (Warner Books, New York, NY, 2002), says "Some dog parks not only don't welcome them ('pit bulls') — they're not even allowed — and that's wrong. You have a dog who can be an ambassador for all 'pit bulls'."

Obviously, the breed's original purpose is not relevant when a Wheaton attacks another dog or a Toy Poodle or a Border Collie or even a Rottweiler. But it's somehow magically relevant if the dog aggression is caused by a 'pit bull'. Even so, 99% of dogs, even 'pit bulls', are NEVER involved in dog fights.

This thoroughly disproves the idea that a breed's original purpose is the main cause for the expression of aggressive behaviours. If it were, most dogs from those breeds would be involved in attacks, and ONLY those dogs would be involved in attacks. The real-world incidents demonstrate a wide range of sizes, shapes, and original breed purposes involved in every manner of unprovoked aggression. There is no breed commonality in serious dog bite statistics.

When looking at the actual dogs involved in serious aggression incidents, and how they absolutely DO NOT share any unique genetic information, we prove the theory that a dog can "inherit" some kind of propensity to attack is completely unfounded, implausible, and unscientific.
Get the facts straight! There is nothing wrong with Pitbulls.

It's the OWNER of the 2 dogs that are being bad! Curse the owner and Screw the deed! The male attacked and the female was fooling around, because the owner was bad! NO BAD DOGS FOR THIS, ONLY BAD OWNERS CAUSE THESE DEEDS!!

Thst's pretty hot

In Vanater v. Village of S. Point, the federal district court held that the village criminal ordinance prohibiting the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers within the village limits was not overbroad & was rationally related to the village's duty to protect the safety of its citizens. Also, the court determined the village showed that pit bull terriers are uniquely dangerous & therefore, are proper subjects of the village's police power for the protection of the public's health & welfare.

u stupid people its the owners that make them that way the dogs arent normally mean ANY DOG CAN ATTACK SOMEONE! you just hear bout pits attacking cause of their name they are gorgeous and very kind dogs when raised right!

If you watch the video again, (50 seconds)you'll hear the reporter say the mother was watching the two dogs for her niece because she was moving. Hopefully the pit that attacked without provocation will get euthanized.

No wonder why the dogs did that they live in a S**t hole if u pause exactly 42 secs. ull see what im talking about. Plus the owners are to stupid to get them NUEDERD. I feel VERY bad for the dogs instead of the people.

The attack upon this poor girl happened about a mile from my home. Last night a block from my house two pit bulls attacked two elderly people and another dog; one pit bull was shot dead by police at the scene and another taken away by the Pound. Yet another example or two of why this dog breed should be made illegal in Seattle (and elsewhere) and their dozy owners held criminally liable for such attacks.