Wow. It's been a really rough couple of weeks on the dog bite fatality front. Dog attack fatalities are EXTREMELY rare -- usually amounting to only about 30 or so a year as compared to 72 million+ owned dogs in this country. Unfortunately, they do happen. And because of their rarity, it is exceedingly important to recognize the circumstances behind these attacks -- because, if any type of dog was 'bred to kill' incidents like this would be far more common. The reality is that dog attack fatalities are so rare you probably couldn't create one if you wanted to.
However, there were two incidents last week. Both tragic. Both preventable. And both can probably tell us a lot about how to avoid tragic attacks and how the humans involved helped create the incidents.
Mary Jo Hunt was a 53 year old woman in Pembroke, NC. Hunt, a rescuer, was in the back yard of her home with "10-15" dogs. According to the reports, several of the larger dogs began attacking one (or more) of the smaller dogs. Hunt apparently tried to intervene and separate the dogs using a rake, but was overwhelmed by the total number of dogs. She was caught up in the attack and died of injuries sustained when the dogs also attacked her.
The situation on the dogs involved is a little unclear -- including how many dogs were actually involved. "Several" of the dogs were German Shepherds and 7 'pit bulls' (the sheriff's office is calling the dogs "mixed breeds" while the Interim Shelter director is calling them 'pit bulls" -- the video footage shows a lot of mixed breed dogs at the shelter -- but it's unclear if the dogs in the video are the ones involved in the attack ) are being blamed for the attack, and 2 other terriers and another 'pit bull" were apparently among the dogs that were "attacked" by the other dogs.
The area where this happened has a 26% poverty rate -- nearly double the national average.
While a lot of the details of the attack are unclear, it does show a situation where one person was responsible for caring for a large number of large dogs all on her own. Any time you have multiple dogs together, there is an opportunity for a skirmish to break out between a couple of the dogs. If that happens, and multiple dogs decide to jump in, then you can definitely have a mess on your hands if you are by yourself. A similar situation happened in August when 23 year old Rebecca Carey was attacked by one of five dogs that were being kept in her home and she apparently got in the middle of two of them fighting.
I highly recommend that rescuers, who often have big hearts and find it hard to say no, understand their limits and avoid situations where they have too many animals for them to handle on their own and always plan on what to do in the "worst case" scenario.
My heart goes out to the family and friends of Ms. Hunt.
The story was picked up by 23 different news sources -- only one of which bothered to mention the presence of German Shepherds at the home.
Tarilyn Bowles was a 3 week old infant that was tragically killed by a dog last week. According to the reports (in, what is an odd story that I'm not quite buying), the infant's mother was temporarily staying in the home of friend and came into the home. She set the toddler on the floor in her child safety seat. The mother did not realize the dog was in the house and thought it was outside. While the mother left the baby unattended, the dog apparently bit the infant in the face and the infant died of the injuries. The dog is being described as a 'pit bull'.
A lot of parts of this story don't make sense -- particularly that the mother said she didn't know the dog was in the house when she came home. I've been around a lot of dogs in my life, and I'm not sure I've ever met one (either aggressive or friendly) that didn't greet me at the door when I got home. So to arrive at the home, and the dog not make its presence known, seems, well, odd.
The incident happened in the 48228 area code of Detroit -- which has a 38% poverty rate -- nearly 3x the national average. I highlight this because I think often people in low-income areas feel the need to get dogs that are (or train dogs to be) somewhat aggressive because they usually live in areas of higher crime. I also think there is a lot of dog ownership education that needs to happen in a lot of low-income areas to help avoid tragedies like this.
Regardless, very young infants are very vulnerable to bites like this as a bite to an adult can be life-threatening to a very young infant - and a bite like this is more likely to happen if the dog is not well-socialized with the infant. And regardless of the socialization, a dog should NEVER be left alone with a child that is under the age of 6 without adult supervision.
My heart goes out to the family and everyone involved in the incident.
The story was covered by dozens of media outlets across the country.
So many injuries and fatalities of infants and toddlers could be avoided if their parents and caretakers never left them alone with a dog (or with a dog who had access to them). I was raised with my parents' beloved Irish Setter, a lively pup they had acquired seven months before my birth. We did almost everything together, but my mother remembers that as much as she loved and trusted her dog, she never left us alone together until I was much older.
And people rarely put the numbers of dog bite fatalities into context with the size of the canine population of this country. As tragic as every one of those fatalities is; they hardly indicate an epidemic or a horrific tendency of dogs if the average is 30 per year committed by a population of some 72 MILLION! I would be interested in the source of your statistics, and also the statistics for non-fatal dog bite incidents. I wonder if anyone keep track of the different levels of severity of dog bites; since there is a huge difference between a nip that barely breaks the surface and a severe dog mauling requiring a large amount of stitches and/or surgery.
Posted by: Pat | October 08, 2012 at 04:59 PM
Pat -- agreed that parents/caretakers not leaving infants/toddlers alone is key.
The 30 is an estimated average over the past 5-6 years -- which has seen a low of about 23, and a high of about 36 -- but usually right around 30. The 72 million owned dogs is a number from the AVMA Animal Ownership Census which is conducted every two years.
As for other bite incidents, the CDC covers total numbers -- they estimate about 4.7 million bites each year -- but most are very minor. Of those about 386,000 require ER treatment (and of those, a lot are fairly minor). The Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project put the number of ER visits at about 316,000 ER visits and 9,500 requiring overnight stays.
There is no tracking this by breed -- and the only attempts that have been done at tracking by breed are based solely on media reports and contain such a small sample size (like 25 a year over 25 years) of the larger group that the data is pretty useless. There was an attempt to do this in Texas too awhile back, but only a small smattering of counties responded....
Posted by: Brent | October 08, 2012 at 06:40 PM
I take great pleasure in seeing you type quotes around the word "Pit Bull".
As I scan through this years dog bite stories there seems to be and a lot of stories which required Quotes around the word "Pit Bull".
If it walks like a duck, quack likes a duck and tastes like a duck, its proablaby a duck.
Or in this case Pit Bulls are a dangerous breed.
You people remind me of the same people that says the only reason we have terrorists is because the United States of America through its actions creates terrorists.
If we only did things differently we would not have any more terrorism.
Same excusses I hear with Pit Bull deaths.
i.e. the Dog was not socialized.
i.e. the Dog was tied up.
i.e. the Dog was not used to being around kids
i.e. the Dog "insert lame Pit Bull apploigist excuse here".
When are you people going to wake up to the fact that pit bulls are dangerous breeds. Not only because they are owned by a lot of idiots. But because they are a large powerful breed.
Posted by: Jan | October 10, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Jan,
Wow. So now the pit bull haters are comparing pit bulls to terrorists? I thought it was pretty laughable before when you comparing them to bears, and lions and such, but terrorists? I'm sure my dog is assembling a small bomb as I type.
As for your "Facts" about pit bulls -- here is a link to one of several scientific studies our there that actually studies aggressiveness by breed. It doesn't support your "fact" at all.
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/11/breed-differences-in-canine-aggression.html
But don't let science distort your viewpoint.
I also have to chuckle a bit about your notion of pit bulls being a "large powerful breed". They are a strong breed, but they are far from large. The average size is genearlly between 40-60 lbs -- and there are a large number of dogs that are significantly larger than this. Heck, Labs, Golden Retrievers are 80 lb dogs, and then we get into things like Mastiffs, St. Bernards, Great Danes etc that can be 150 lbs+.
But again, don't led the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Posted by: Brent | October 11, 2012 at 07:53 AM
There is this thing called the "internet" and on the internet there is a web site called google. You can ask it any question and it usually gives you a pretty good answer.
I typed "Large Pit Bulls"
http://www.bossykennels.com/
http://donskennels.com/
I am sure you can get any study to say anything. But facts are facts.
There seems to be a lot of deaths by Pit Bulls this year.
I actually compared Pit Bull lovers, to the people who applogize for the actions of Terrorists.
In the below you tube video an 81 pound Pit Bull pulls 6,200 pounds. That seems pretty powerful and dangerous to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGCzwc393WI
I did not have to get a scitenfic degree or conduct a years worth of research to back up my point that Pit Bulls are a large dangerous breed.
Lets say for the sake of argument that I agree with you that the average size of a pit bull is 35 - 65 pounds. There are also a large amount of dogs which are also Pit Bulls which are larger than the "Average Pit Bull" Size.
Posted by: Jan | October 11, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Jan, here's the core problem: what makes a Pit bull a Pit bull? If someone brings a 40 lb. dog to my shelter and calls it a Chihuahua, it's... just not. A 40 lb. dog might have some Chihuahua in it, but it's not a Chihuahua.
The tricky bit with Pit bulls is that people are making an argument that they are intrinsically-because-of-their-breed aggressive. If that's true, it has to be because the aggression is genetic--inherited by some gene combination in the Pit bull breed. But if we're going to make an argument based on genetics, it has to follow the rules of genetics. Like, if the umpire is going to call a batter out, you can't be playing football. Genes are real, tangible bits of DNA code with real effects and real rules they follow.
What we know about that is professional dog folks (vets, dog trainers, groomers, animal control officers) are terrible at accurately naming genetic content based on the looks of the dog. What gets called a "Pit bull" may have no Pit bull genetic content at all, and so if aggression is genetic--they may have the looks but they don't have the genes. The rules of genetics and inheritance are ferociously complicated, but for dogs--one rule is blazingly clear: looks just don't predict genes.
I do have a science background and I have spent years researching. I am also passionately committed to humane education, dog bite prevention and public safety. It's because I am passionate and committed (and like science) that I don't want folks thinking it's a breed thing. Some of the worst bite I've dealt with in my area have come from Golden Retrievers (seriously). Parents assumed that breed was safe and so didn't teach the dog to be safe... ouch.
Posted by: Emily | October 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM
Jan,
Of course Emily is right, that you can't make the argument that 'pit bulls' are genetically hardwired to be dangerous and then at the same time use dogs that are so genetically altered that they barely resemble pit bulls as evidence of this.
But let's assume for a second that these are, indeed, 'pit bulls', they're still 1/2 the size of many of the large breeds of dogs out there.
And it is funny to see you dismiss science, and then point to a youtube video. I guess that is what makes pit bull 'advocates' a little more reliable than the pit bull haters because the 'advocates' rely on science and facts, and you rely on youtube videos to support your assumption that pit bulls are large, oversized dangerous dogs....when, in fact they're not.
Posted by: Brent | October 14, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Emily,
You kind of help to prove my point.
And you and Brent continue to ignore the obvious.
I love the fact that you go to science and point the fingers at other breeds or try and cloud the argument with what a "Pit Bull" actually "IS".
From your own web site, year after year. You have more people killed by pit bulls than any other breed.
Other web sites go back even further and have found the same results.
http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html
Brent,
You say I dismiss science but how does science explain the very large number of deaths by dog by pit bull over the last 20 years.
You say You Tube is not science? It has recent videos showing pit bulls which are large and over sized. But you say they are not. I am not saying that every Pit Bull is huge. But even small pit bulls are shown pulling 1000's of pounds of weight in weight pull competitions.
There are lots of web sites which are dedicated to breed large over sized pit bulls.
It is actually the Pro Pit Bull community which is hiding behind "Science" when there is 30+ years of facts staring them in the face which you choose to ignore.
Year after year Pit Bulls lead the way with killing humans.
Your only answer for this is to put quotes around the word "Pit Bull" and say they were not pure breeds.
In America if a Senate candidate can claim to be American Indian when they are 1/64th and look as white as can be.
I am sure we can call a Dog a Pit Bull, when reasonable people agree its a pit bull without getting a DNA test. Especially if the owners of the Dog Bought it or Got it because they wanted a Pit Bull.
Also i am not sure I ever stated that Pit Bulls are genetically hard wired to be dangerous.
I am stating that over the last 20-30 years. Pit Bulls have caused more deaths to humans than any other breed. This makes them dangerous.
I would also say that Pit Bulls have caused more deaths to Adult Humans than any other breed. I think this stat is even more important, because any Dog can Kill a small child.
I would also say that Pit Bulls have killed more adult Owners than any other breed. Which is even more telling. Because having a Dog Turn On and Kill its owner is a pretty interesting stat.
Anyone want to bet on the next story which needs to be run what kind of breed is said to do the killing?
Posted by: Jan | November 08, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Jan,
Because you're relying on such limited information for your decision-making, your conclusions are eronious (and I think you intentionally only use a small number of facts in order to be able to maintain that conclusion).
There is no question that pit bulls have been responsible for more deaths over the past decade than any other type of dog. Even though we can, in many of these instances, dispute the breed identification (the poitn of this post) of those statistics, it doesn't matter. Even if all of them really were pit bulls, it still does not support your conclusion: that pit bulls are dangerous.
Depending on how broad or narrow your definition of pit bulls, there are an estimated 3-8 million of them in the US right now. If pit bulls were really "dangerous", then certainly there would be 100s of thousands, or even millions of fatalities. But there aren't. It's usually 10-15 by pit bulls every year. The actions of such a percentage of the total number of dogs of a certain type makes them the EXCEPTIONS, not the breed standard.
Meanwhile it is also not arguable that pit bull type dogs are extremely popular dogs -- easily among the two most popular breeds in the United States. And yet, there are other, very uncommon breeds, also involved in fatal attacks, that even if they commit 1 every two years, a larger perentage of the dogs of those breeds are involved in attacks than those of pit bulls. So breed popularity plays a significant role.
For example, in Canada, the breed of dog that has been responsible for by far the largest number of casualties are Husky-type dogs. This is not because they are vicious dogs (people never clamour about their aggressiveness in the US or Canada) but because they a) are the most popular type of dog there and b) they are often kept outside tethered because they are used as working dogs.
So popularity, and function, matter greatly.
This is where SCIENCE comes in. This is why it's important. Because without it you end up making ridiculous assumptions based on extremely limited data because that's what little data is available to support your currently held point of view -- when the science says something entirely different.
Posted by: Brent | November 08, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Canada? Please lets not bring Canada into the mix. Unless of course you are lumping this in with the US deaths.
But lets stick America's problem with American examples
But just for giggles I found this on the Internet 28 deaths in Canada in 17 years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/
All the science in the world does not cant continue to explain why Pit Bulls lead the league in deaths every single year.
And lets say you are right on everything.
Pit Bulls still lead the league in deaths. This must mean people are too stupid to handle the dogs and as such need to be regulated and controlled.
So either way your argument fails. If you win you fail if you lose you fail. Might as well get on board and draft your own regulation before someone else does.
Posted by: Jan | November 08, 2012 at 04:47 PM
WOW.....
I just saw something which you wrote which is in direct contradiction to everything which you say.
Every time you put Quotes around "Pit Bull" you make it sound like it could not possibly have been a pit bull....because they are as rare and hard to identify like a chupracabra.
However using your own numbers 6.1% of every household has a Pit Bull. And accounts for 15.7% of Dogs in people's homes with Dogs.
So lets just go ahead and stop with the quotes.
Another thing. Why does Pit Bulls need their own Month. Unless of course if something is wrong.
Posted by: Jan | November 08, 2012 at 05:17 PM
Jan, let me help you with the math a little. 5 million pit bulls would equal about 7% of all owned dogs being pit bulls (based on the US pet census numbers of 72 million owned dogs). This would be pretty consistent with most estimates from different organizations (unless they are defining 'pit bulls' as just purebred pit bulls, then it is much lower).
I put "pit bull" in quotes because that is what the dog is called by the authority. As can be evidenced in any number of places, the word can be defined very broadly (like in Toledo, where they used to call 11 breeds and their mixes 'pit bulls') or very narrowly (like some people who insist that the words can only apply to the American Pit Bull Terrier) -- depending on who the person is making the declaration. But WOW, you got me.
Posted by: Brent | November 08, 2012 at 10:34 PM
The reason I brought up Canada is because it does help explain why pit bulls lead in bites in the US -- because they're among the most popular breeds of dogs in the country. This is same reason Huskies lead in fatalities in Canada - because they're the most popular breed of dog there. It does not mean that either breed is more aggressive than other breeds, or that Canadian Huskies are more dangerous than US Huskies. It's just numbers. Again, you can't just ignore the data (and science) that doesn't agree with your point of view (which is most of it).
Meanwhile, it would never, ever make sense to regulate (and attempt to enforce laws on) the owners of 5 million pit bull type dogs to try to control the actions of 15 of them. You can't make laws to try to deal with .003% of a group of people. It's cost prohibitive and not productive.
Especially when there are laws that have proven to be effective that target the very small number of people who are "too stupid to handle" their dogs -- who are much more easily identified than mixed breeds of dogs. The laws also get all of the other dogs owners who are bad dog owners -- regardless of the breed of dog they choose to own -- which protects people from bad dog owners, regardless of their breed of choice - and targeted enough to be effectively enforced. A win for everyone.
Posted by: Brent | November 08, 2012 at 10:54 PM