Ed Boks and the pit bulls
Los Angeles Animals Services General Manager and blogger Ed Boks came into the Daily News offices this morning for an editorial board meeting. And something he said about pitt bulls stuck with me. Boks repeated the statement usually heard from the pit bull apologizers that it's a myth that pit bulls cause so much violence and mayhem.
Considering that searches through our newspaper archives find that the majority of attacks serious enough to make it into the news pages involve pit bulls (wchich is a generalized term for a number of similar-looking terrier breeds), I couldn't believe this was right. And just a cusory search of turned up support from the Centers for Disease Control. A 2000 report noted that pit bulls are involved in one-third of all fatal dog-on-human attacks. Rots were the second more dangerous dogs. Here's a link to the full report.
At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths.
Boks' response was that most urban dogs are pit bulls. I'm not sure that's true either. Pit bulls do seem to be overrepresented in the city animal shelters. But does that represent the true demographics of the city's dog population or speak to the unsuitability of the breed to living with humans?
Anyhow, I'd be interested in seeing any updated information about this on either side.
I've only witnessed one dog attack in my life, (thank God) and it was a pit bull v. a chow chow. The pit won.
I think you have to realize that the statistics are skewed. Ask yourself: If I were bitten by a dog and it was a "pit bull" would I report it?
What if it were a Chihauha?
Labrador?
Collie?
Cocker Spaniel?
I think the only thing that you can garner from these statistics is the more pit bull bites are REPORTED than any other dog. Likewise, more Pit Bull bites make it into the news than any other breed.
Think about it.