Pit Bull Attacks Lead Many Cities to Consider Banning Breed
In response to pit bull attacks and other dog bites caused by animals thought to have a vicious propensity, many cities and states have passed or considered legislation that restrict or ban certain types of dogs.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 310,000 people received medical treatment for dog bites in 2007, and that likely only represents a small percentage of the actual number of bite injuries, since many are not reported.
A study published by the CDC in 2000, indicated that pit bull-type breeds were the cause of one-third of all reported dog attack deaths between 1979 and 1998, with 118 pit bull attacks. Rottweillers were found to be the second highest, with 67 Rottweiler attack deaths during the time period.
Did You Know?
Millions of Philips CPAP Machines Recalled
Philips DreamStation, CPAP and BiPAP machines sold in recent years may pose a risk of cancer, lung damage and other injuries.
Learn MoreAccording a new article by the Associated Press, during the 2007-2008 legislative session, 86 proposals to ban or restrict certain vicious breeds of dogs were introduced throughout the country. These breeds include pit bulls, Rottweilers, Staffordshire bull terriers and American Staffordshire terriers, to name a few.
The legislation, which is often introduced in response to a particularly tragic animal attack, are usually opposed by many dog owners and breeders, who favor a “punish the deed, not the breed” approach to the dog bite problem.
Even without the restrictions or bans, animal owners can be subject to substantial liability through a dog bite lawsuit and could also face fines or other criminal penalty for failing to maintain adequate control over a dog that is found to have a vicious propensity. However, many dog owners do not carry insurance coverage, especially in urban areas with higher numbers of rental properties, leaving victims without any source of compensation for irresponsible dog owners’ negligence.
In Ohio, a state law was passed in 1987 requiring owners of purebred pit bulls to confine their dogs and carry at least $100,000 worth of insurance coverage for potential pit bull attack lawsuits.
6 Comments
"*" indicates required fields
josieJune 2, 2011 at 5:04 am
I have been around every type of dog my whole life. Best behaved dog I have had is a pit. They really are a misunderstood breed. I am very sorry to hear about your brother but the people that own those pits were probably not raising them properly. They are a domesticated species just like other canine they just happen to have a stronger jaw causing them to get more bad publicity than other breeds.[Show More]I have been around every type of dog my whole life. Best behaved dog I have had is a pit. They really are a misunderstood breed. I am very sorry to hear about your brother but the people that own those pits were probably not raising them properly. They are a domesticated species just like other canine they just happen to have a stronger jaw causing them to get more bad publicity than other breeds. If a Chihuahua or a poodle were the size of a pit or had the same jaws they would be way more deadly. Pits ar not territorial...they are anxious. Any dog can run around and terrorize if not properly trained but some breeds such as poodles are territorial and will attack out of anger instead of fear. If other breeds were as strong they would be waaaaay more dangerous. It really is the fault of the owners. You can't say that all people from a trailer park are dangerous because one methed out person killed someone so let's ban all people from trailer parks. It's the ones who are brought up badly and are treated badly. Don't be an ignorant racist about this issue. I am sorry about your brother but if people would recognize that the problem is the owner and the dogs are a reflection of their upbringing there would be more positive solutions instead of people shooting a living being. If it were some kids shooting fireworks at him or something more dangerous the neighbor would be in prison for murder for shooting them b cuz it would be looked at as the parents fault for not disciplining their children. That neighbor would be a monster for killing a child. A living being
RoseNovember 11, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Today my 6 foot tall brother was in the country working on some property when he was attacked by 2 pitbull/boxer mix dogs. He did not see them as they came up from behind him and attacked. They came from their owners house that was 2 houses from where my brother was. He was rushed to the hospital and suffered bites to both arms, his stomach, legs, and hands. He was able to shove his hand into the [Show More]Today my 6 foot tall brother was in the country working on some property when he was attacked by 2 pitbull/boxer mix dogs. He did not see them as they came up from behind him and attacked. They came from their owners house that was 2 houses from where my brother was. He was rushed to the hospital and suffered bites to both arms, his stomach, legs, and hands. He was able to shove his hand into the mouth of one dog that was going for his throat. His screams got the attention of a neighbor who rushed to get a gun , shot one of the dogs, while the other one ran away. Had the neighbor not shot the dog my brother would have been killed. I am so angry with people who defend these dangerous types of dogs. They are ticking time bombs waiting to go off and maim or kill innocent people. My brother had no idea there were loose pitbulls in the area. He did nothing to provoke these dogs. Communities need to ban these dogs from their areas and protect innocent citizens from these kinds of horrible attacks. If my brother had been a young child it is certain that they would have quickly killed them. Because he was very strong and because of a quick acting neighbor he lived. Do not say to me that pitbulls and pit bull mixes are gentle misunderstood wonderful loving animals. They are the number 1 breed of dog who are responsible for over 67 % of fatalities by dogs in America between 1997 and 1998. We need to pass some tough laws to ban these dogs and to require owners to carry 100,000 dollars in insurance liability for those stupid enough to insist on owning these types of dogs.
cindyMay 24, 2010 at 3:28 pm
NO the pitbulls should not be punished for the way their owners rais them. It is not the dogs that are agressive be they want to be but it is the owners who rais them to be that way. If people would respect their animals and not abuse them then there would not be any animal attacks. The owners are the ones the poice should be after not the dogs, because with the right family the dogs will not be t[Show More]NO the pitbulls should not be punished for the way their owners rais them. It is not the dogs that are agressive be they want to be but it is the owners who rais them to be that way. If people would respect their animals and not abuse them then there would not be any animal attacks. The owners are the ones the poice should be after not the dogs, because with the right family the dogs will not be this way even if they are taken from a home like this they will be less agressive and more lovable. I am a happy pitbull owner and i will never own any other dog, i grew up raising pitbulls they are not agressive if they have the right owner behind them. Yes they are a one person dog most of the time but it just takes time for them to see that another person is not trying to hurt them or their owner. Please take what i have said into consideration before making this dramatic desition on banding pitbulls.
JamieApril 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I have been around Pit Bulls and Rotts my entire life. I know from experience, not heresay, that Pits and Rotts are not dangerous unless owned by dangerous people. Baniing a breed only results in law abiding citizens like myself to lose their INNOCENT dogs... If you ban guns, are the criminals going to rush out of the woodwork to hand over their guns? Of course not. It is the same with these dogs.[Show More]I have been around Pit Bulls and Rotts my entire life. I know from experience, not heresay, that Pits and Rotts are not dangerous unless owned by dangerous people. Baniing a breed only results in law abiding citizens like myself to lose their INNOCENT dogs... If you ban guns, are the criminals going to rush out of the woodwork to hand over their guns? Of course not. It is the same with these dogs... The people that own them for the wrong reasons do not care about the law. Therefore only innocent Pits and responsible owners will be affected...
Maryland Dog FederationJanuary 27, 2009 at 5:58 pm
You mention the 2000 CDC study, but you misrepresent the findings. Their study was based on a review of news articles. Only news accounts that mentioned the breed of dog were counted. Almost one quarter of the news accounts were not counted in this report because the breed of dog was NOT mentioned. Since the the lack of mention of breed usually indicates that it was NOT a "pit bull" or Rottw[Show More]You mention the 2000 CDC study, but you misrepresent the findings. Their study was based on a review of news articles. Only news accounts that mentioned the breed of dog were counted. Almost one quarter of the news accounts were not counted in this report because the breed of dog was NOT mentioned. Since the the lack of mention of breed usually indicates that it was NOT a "pit bull" or Rottweiler, it is a high likelihood that the numbers you quote are very skewed. Here is the statement of one of the researchers, Dr. Gail Golab, in response to the kind of misrepresentation perpetrated in your article: "It is frustrating for me personally because people who want to enact Breed Specific Legislation keep using the report to try and make a case against pit bulls. The whole point of our summary was to explain you can't do that." Also, the vast majority of breed specific legislation proposals are defeated, usually very soundly. Most recently, Montana legislature defeated a state ban in January 2009. I believe the vote was 17-1 against.
TamaraJanuary 26, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Dangerous dog registries, dog-owner's liability insurance, and "One-Bite Rules" rely on punishing dogs and owners after-the-fact, which contributes nothing to prevention. In contrast, the 7-Step Dangerous Dog Risk Mitigation Protocol, available at no cost from www.PreventDogBites.com, is a "proactive" approach: potentially problematic dogs are identified by objective criteria and adequately contai[Show More]Dangerous dog registries, dog-owner's liability insurance, and "One-Bite Rules" rely on punishing dogs and owners after-the-fact, which contributes nothing to prevention. In contrast, the 7-Step Dangerous Dog Risk Mitigation Protocol, available at no cost from www.PreventDogBites.com, is a "proactive" approach: potentially problematic dogs are identified by objective criteria and adequately contained BEFORE they bite.