My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Exaggeration | Main | Florida Incident Follow Up »

March 05, 2007



I wonder if you can spin the link to this story in favor of the Pit Bull? The family pet raised since pups.

If I can get the pictures of the woman's neck and face will you post them on your website?

Let me know it I will spend the effort to get the pictures. Thanks Doug


33- The number of fatal dog attacks in the past 42 years.

If they were so vicious I think we'd have a few more canine fatalities in FL Doug...You're using one anomoly to prove your "point". The facts aren't in on why the dogs attacked - they state as much in the article. There has NEVER been a case when family pets have attacked for NO reason. But instead of trying to figure out the reason the media and those it benefits want to write it off as a BREED thing instead of finding out how it could have been prevented. Something isn't adding up...

I've got pics of a husky fatality - wanna see them? No one is defending truly vicious dogs here - but blaming the breed is like blaming the person's race for their crime.


I read your post and just thought it was funny, that you were questioning a girl's injuries.

"It sounds like she's the least injured of the two, but how bad does she look savaged. Looks like she scraped up her elbow in the fall."

Let's say all the skin around the elbow is gone. That sounds pretty bad especially when its a little girl.

The only point I was trying to make is that the two pit bull dogs raised since puppies by the home owner. Were identified by the neighbors as "good dogs", this means two things, 1, they really were good Dogs and the neighbors did not fear them and 2 the homeowners sounded like good people who treated their dogs well. They slept in the same bed.

Not only did these two dogs attack, they killed their owner. I guess there is a first time for everything.

So this, by your accounts, has to be the first time that a Pit Bull attacked and killed for no reason. Unless the reason is that the breed is just dangerous by nature. In that case, your statement still holds true. Pit Bulls have never attacked for a reason.

Try not to be blinded by your own love for your dogs. Pit bulls have a bad rep for a reason.


One other thing...please don't compare dog breeds to human races. It is insulting and demeaning to suggest that the two of them are equal.

Please take your blinders off.


Doug, A couple of thoughts:

1) Don't send me pictures if you have them. I've seen all kinds of pictures from fatal dog attacks: Akitas, Labs, Dachsunds, Husky's, Presa's, pit bulls, etc. They all look about the same, and they're all disgusting, sad, and anger-inducing. They have no place here.

2) As for the story you mentioned, thanks for reminding me that I need to track down more info on that one. Strange story. Strange that there was not one single follow-up story after 80 newspapers ran the original. Strange that 2 adult-sized young men were at home during the attack, with a gun in the house, and they called 911 while their mom was killed. Strange that no one questioned those things - - or followed up on them. Even if the story happened exactly as reported (which never ends up being the case), it will be the first ever documented case of a family pit bull that lived indoors killing someone. It's a statistical anomoly of dog attacks, or dogs in general. Not something to base laws around.

3) As for the breed = race thing -- that's exactly what a "breed" is -- it's genetically exactly the same thing as a "race" in humans. We know that in humans there is no "gene" or genetic mutation that causes people of certain races to be a certain way -- and yet we are quick to assume that such a thing exists in a "race" of dogs. It's not genetically, biologically or phsychologically an accurate concept. I'm pretty sure that's what Michelle was getting at -- that they are INDEED "races" -- only that they're called "breeds" when referring to dogs.


Not to pile on...but this just came across the wire.

Two pit bulls killing a small horse and then driving a man up a tree.

Again the pit bulls have a bad rep for a reason.


oops...really not to pile on but this also just came over the wire. This one happend 2 days ago.

Again the pit pulls have a bad rep for a reason.


Interestingly Doug, the newest version of the story -- now that the dogs have been captured by authorities, has them listed as "dogs" - -and not "pit bulls". A case of mistaken identity maybe?

My question for you Doug, is according to the statistics, each year 4.7 million people each year are bitten by dogs - -and over 800,000 people each year require medical attention due to dog bites.

Why is it that there are only news reports about a dozen of them each each week -- and the vast majority of the ones reported involve pit bulls? Could it be that because pit bulls have a "bad rep" that they then become more newsworthy for people like you? Which then give them a worse rep?

Pulling newspaper clippings won't support your point of view. Talk to veterinarians, animal behaviorists, experts in the field, etc. They'll give you a real opinion. The media feeds information to people like you who WANT to believe there is something inherantly dangerous about "pit bulls" without doing any real research on the issue. Good for you for falling in line rank and file.


I saw three articles which said Pit Bull to your one. So how about we split the difference and say 75% pit bull.

We can go round and round on this but lets just use logic on this one...If pit bulls were not nasty killers with in-breed traits to kill, the people who do dog fighting would not use these dogs.

The reason why they use these dogs is because they are the best at killing and fighting.

Or else we would be talking about poodles.


Doug, I'll compare whatever the hell I want to and I don't give a shit if I insult about having BLINDERS on?! Take some of your own advice. Do a Google search on Jim Crosby, Canine Agression Consultant, Karen Delise, Janis Bradly. Look up the CDC, AVMA, ASPCA and every other respected org out there - they all agree. But your "proof" is a bunch of newspaper clippings...

In KCMO area there are AT LEAST 3 bites a day and most of them are by Labradors yet we've only heard of one biting case in the news in the past 2 years.

Pit bulls have a bad rep because people like you believe everything that's spoon fed to you by the fear mongering media to sell papers and the fear mongering politicians to get votes.


In the middle east they use herding dogs for fighting. In China, Shar Peis are the fighting breed. Why don't they use those breeds here? Oh yeah, because pit bulls are the dog de jour for the criminal Rotties, Dobermens used to be.

You're blaming the victim for what HUMANS use them for...should we blame Black people for their own enslavement too? And women because they're good at getting raped.


You really do have blinders on.

I have no doubt that most dog bite happen with non pit bull type dogs. In probably yes there are more lab bites than any other dog, just because there are more of them.

But the difference is it is usually a one bite and done type of attack or maybe a couple of puncture wounds.

When a pit bull attacks the chances for major damage is greater. Wouldn't you agree?



It's interesting that you bring up dog fighting in this - and that people use pit bulls for this because "they're the best at killing and fighting."

Let's use the Michael Vick incident as an example (since it's the most publicized dog fighting ring ever).

On Vick's property, these dogs were kept outside on short chains where they're noses were almost able to touch but not quite to create the most aggression possible. There were tread mills, spring polls, steroids and other items used to make the dogs aggressive.

If these dogs were so naturally aggressive, would all of these things be necessary?

But even with all of the training to be vicious, Vick admitted to having killed dogs (drowning, electrocution, body-slamming, etc) because in spite of all of this THEY STILL REFUSED TO FIGHT.

Then, Vick's dogs were rescued, 48 of the 49 dogs that were evaluated by animal behavior specialists were deemed non-aggressive once they were removed from the torturous conditions they were kept in -- IN SPITE OF BEING BRED AND TRAINED FOR AGGRESSION.

How could it be possible that dogs that are naturally aggressive need to be trained to be that way and then, once trained, still aren't aggressive? Doesn't add up Doug.

Based on FACTS (I prefer to use those Doug, you should try it), there are 800,000 dog bites each year that require medical attention and 368,000 each year that require emergency room visitation. That's OVER 1000 dog bites PER DAY that require medical emergency room visits. And yet, how many do we hear about? A couple a day? Why do you think that is Doug? Why do we only hear of about .3% of the total dog bites that require medical treatment?

I suggest you do more actual research on the actual information instead of reading a newspaper article or two and casting'll be a much smarter person for it.


What up B,

Let use football players as an example, they go on treadmills, spring poles and take steriods to make already natural gifts better. Even when some football players take all this stuff to make themselves better they still are not good enough to play/fight at the highest level and are not worth the money or time to make them better. So they are cut.

Just like the Pits which Vick was training.

Don't break your hand patting yourself on the back for the 49 of 50 dogs finding a home. They were saved by the ASPCA and other pro Pit Bull Groups. If PETA had their way they would have been put down. Let's cross our fingers that none of those dogs ever kills another animal or person.

I have seen plenty of dog fights at the park, they are usually over in about 10 seconds with no harm done. I have seen plenty of dogs attack cats only to have the cat come out on top. I do not think either would be true for any of the 49 remaining dogs - no matter what testing they went through.

If we can parole violent criminals to kill or rape again because they were evaulated by proffesionals over many years who said they would be good. What makes you say you can even be 20% correct that these dogs will not kill. Last time I checked they are called animals for a reason and I don't know of any doctor Doolittles.

I will already concede that Pit Bulls are not responsible for most of the bites, if you concede that if you had to choose between being attacked by a 50 pound pit bull or a 50 pound lab, you would pick the lab because they are less vicious and have less of a fight in them.


I've seen the damage from all kinds of breeds of dogs - my preference would be to not be attacked by any of them.

This is why I support legislation that focuses on the dog behavior and owner responsibility vs the breed of dog involved. I'd rather animal controls spend its time in dealing with potentially dangerous dogs (based on bahavior) regardless of breed, than focusing on a dog based on the shape of its head that shows no sign of aggression. I don't care if the dog is a pit bull, a 150 lb Mastiff, a 100 lb Rottweiller, a 80 lb Lab or a 50 Lb pit bull -- if it shows signs of aggression, let's deal with it. If an owner isn't properly caring for his dog, or habitually violates animal control ordinances, deal with them.

If the dog is not a problem, let them alone. Let's focus on the real causes of bad animal behavior (owners) instead of pretending something else (breed) is the problem...because i don't want to be attacked by any of them.


I stand corrected a labrador is the worst dog to own.

Google Searches

"Retriever Kills" - Results 55 Hits
"Labrador Kills" - Results 22 Hits
"Rottweiler kills" - Results 705 Hits
"German Shepherd" - Results 126 Hits
"Chow Kills" - Results 52 Hits
"Pit Bull Kills" - Results 15,300 Hits

Not too Scientific but its a start.


BTW, your football player analogy doesn't work. Your argument has that pit bulls have a rep for a reason, and it's because they are more aggressive than other dogs. But if not all of them become aggressive -- even when trained to be aggressive -- then it would lead logical people to the conclusion that not all pit bulls are aggressive. I mean, if you can't even TRAIN all pit bulls to be aggressive, then they can't all be aggressive. If not all pit bulls are aggressive, then there are other reasons why some are aggressive and some aren't.

If we can then conclude not all pit bulls are aggressive, we should then be able to make a leap that there are other factors involved that should be focused on beyond breed of dog when talking about aggression issues.


Ok no one wants to get bit, but if you had to choose, is it a pit bull or a lab?


LOL on the Lab thing -- I've never heard of a pit bull shooting someone.

I will repeat, do not use media reports (which is what google will give you) on dog attacks. As noted before, only about.002% of dog attacks get reported....and the media is very selective in which "breeds" they report. Let's use real data.

On the which dog piece, it depends on the dog. I say that in all honesty. I take my dogs our regularly for walks. We see all kinds of dogs out on our walks. There are only two that I've run across that actual scare me - -one is a huge Akita/Chow/Something or other that is clearly not well socialized and scares the hell out of me, another is a black lab that is left out far too much chained to a tree that will come to the end of its tether and bear its teeth and growl and lunge. I feel like I have a good read on animal behavior, and that dog would really attack me if it got the opportunity. There are several "pit bull types" on my walk that don't scare me one bit.

I'd much rather be bitten by one of the well-behaved pit bulls than this dog because I feel like I'd be able to snap them out of the behavior quickly because they are generally good dogs. I don't feel that way with this lab. Certainly I've met dogs of all breeds that fit into these categories...but I find it's very much a factor of how the dog is contained/treated by its owner.

So in short, if I'd much rather be attacked/bitten by a generally well-behaved and socialized dog than an ill-behaved unsocialized dog. I'd rather be attacked by a small dog than a big dog.

From a true public safety perspective, the answer doesn't really matter. The reality is that as a 34 year old male, in good shape and health, I'm very unlikely to get attacked at all. Almost all cases of severe bites are to young children and the which case size of dog very seldom has any real bearing because these people are generally unable to defend themselves from an attack by any-sized or shaped dog.


Ok there always comes a time when someone needs to be decleared the winner. We just saw that with the red sox last night. We saw it with the 2000 election (just 39 days later). And now we are seeing it with the Pit Bull debate.

After reading the attached link there is nothing you can even come close to typing back which does not justify BSL for Pit Bulls.

I never knew how sick, mean and nasty these dogs truely are but this stroy kind of seals the deal. God....It just kills me to be right all the time.

Unless your reply is the vast right wing conspiracy.

sick sick sick sick sick.....


OK, you're a complete dumbass. The DNA evidence ruled out human DNA but it didn't PROVE anything!


Wow, now who is a dumbass. Did you even read the article.

"One neighbor told 2 On Your Side, she heard the mother screaming "The dog is raping my baby." Neighbors ran to help, but only one man was able to get the dog and child apart."

I'll bet you are the kind of person who you let your Pit Bull chew on your children to the bone and then explain it off that there is no proof that the pit bull did it because there is not enough skin left on my kid to match up bite mark identification.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh......wait a I know why you own a pit bull......... you little scamp.......I guess you really are a pit bull "lover".

Well good for you.....everyone needs someone...(well, something).


Interesting story, Doug.

Too bad you're being too childish to realize that there's no reason any other breed of dog wouldn't do something like that.

Not only that, but how can 1 single case be used to make a blanket statement about an entire breed of dog?

You're being incredibly illogical about this, therefore all people named Doug are illogical.

Dogs don't "rape" people. Their sexuality and reasons for it are entirely alien to us humans. No doubt this boy was badly hurt, but the dog wasn't trying to hurt him, the dog was trying to assert dominance over him in the pack hierarchy. Every single breed of dog behaves this way.

All this story should tell you is that it's a bad idea to leave a 2 year old (especially a naked one) alone with a dog.

Here's something interesting about Beagles:

"ohhhhhhhhhhhhh......wait a I know why you own a pit bull......... you little scamp.......I guess you really are a pit bull "lover"."

Reading this, the first thought in my mind was "at least this 13 year old isn't old enough to vote."

If you want to convince people, try using a logical argument. Nobody is going to take you seriously after that comment.


The real problem with Pit Bulls is that they have a bad reputation that has become self-sustaining.

Bad dog owners are drawn to Pit Bulls because they have a reputation for being "tough" dogs. As a result of being owned by a bad dog owner, the dogs are not treated well and become poorly socialized. This leads to more poorly trained Pit Bulls, thus leading to a slightly higher instance of "incidents" which only reinforces the original bad reputation. And the cycle continues...

It wasn't always this way though, were you aware, Doug, that the American Pit Bull Terrier was one of the most highly respected breeds in the USA about 40 years ago? During that time, the Doberman Pinscher was the dog that terrified everyone (and was thus over-reported just as the Pit Bull is now).

If you were to ask the average dog owner what they think of Dobermans now, I'm certain you wouldn't hear the word "vicious." But that's exactly what you would have heard in the 1970's.

If you are, in fact, older than 13, then perhaps you should think back. Do you remember being told to be afraid of Pit Bulls when you were young? If not, why do you think that is? When I was a child growing up in the early 80's, Dobermans were the dog to be afraid of.

If you're interested in knowing the history of fatal dog attacks, read 'Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics' by Karen Delise.

I'm sure you'll call it biased, but there's a reason there are many many more books taking a stance against BSL than that are defending it. It's because BSL proponents don't have a logical foot to stand on.

The problem really is the cycle of bad reputations. As soon as the bad dog owners get bored with a breed, or shy away from a breed because of social stigma, they'll move onto the next popular "tough" guard dog. And 5 years after that happens, suddenly these dogs are everywhere and everyone who owns one doesn't know what they're doing. I feel sorry for owners of Cane Corsos, I have a feeling their dogs are going to be suffering like Pits are now in 10 years.


Of course I was being childish...if you saw the person I was replying to she was saying that there was not proof the dog did it, when they had to be pried apart by the neighbor.

All dogs bite, but the problems with pits (it seems) is that when they bite it is 10 times worse.

I don't know when that book was written, but I would love to see the stats of fatal human attacks and fatal dog/cat attacks for the last 5 years.

The comments to this entry are closed.