My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Young lives are more newsworthy than older ones | Main | Kansas Gambling, why animal lovers should care »

March 24, 2007



I don't know if pit bulls are more likely to bite, the concern is the strength of the jaws and a literal attack rather than a simple bite. And I know the defense of "It's the owner, not the dog that's at fault" is popular. Unfortunately, there's usually only one way you find out that the dog had a bad owner, and that's after an attack.



Thanks for the note, and I don't blame you for your point of view. Unfortunately, if you base opinions on what you see in the media, you would naturally think that.

The reality is that there is no evidence that pit bulls bite harder than any other similar-sized dog. I point you to an Ohio Court Case Toledo vs Tellings -- read section 25 and the expert testimoney on tht matter (section 4 gives Dr. Brisbin's Bio).

Regardless, it really doesn't matter a lot the size of the dog. Given that the vast majority of major dog attacks (79% of fatlaties) involve young children -- you can see the fatlity numbers here: it can really be a mid-sized dog that can be a problem.

Also, the part that the newspapers never put enough emphasis on is that most major dog attacks involve dogs that have some type of history that forshadows this incident. They almost always have been involved in another attack of some type, although more minor. This is never emphasised, but is usually the case. But this is why I usually prefer an ordinance like Olathe's, which has a behavioral tier system where a dog can be deemed dangerous based on behavior (that doesn't include a bite), and then will be deemed "vicious" if it does bite. "Dangerous" and "vicious" come with separate sets of restrictions. It's very proactive, and can identify dangerous dogs before they bite...

The comments to this entry are closed.