question about camping with a pittbull

dturm wrote:
The difficulty that people here have stated about determining their own dog's breed points out a flaw in dog bite statistics. Pit bulls are probably over represented in those statistics because of false identification. That being said, when serious bites occur, big dogs can and do inflict more damage.

Insurance companies are in the business of limiting risk, therefore they use statistics that are available. You really can't fault them too much, but I think that gives people who own poorly trained, poorly socialized, poorly bred dogs a pass on bad behavior. It also give society a false sense of security.

Having dealt with dogs of all breeds daily for 40+ years, I would rather work on a pit than many other breeds. BUT, when they are difficult, they are really difficult to deal with.

Doug, DVM

Very true.


I remember when I brought my rescued akita to my regular vet for the first time for shots, we were waiting in the front room. The vet walked by with a bag of dog food and heard a dog growl. He turned and looked at my akita and said "was that him?!". I said " no, it was the one in the cat carrier." When we were in the room and he met my akita, he apologized. He had recently been bit by a dog and was still a touch sensitive. He had no problem at all with my dog and developed a really good relationship with him.

BCSnob wrote:
Other articles indicate reports of bites to young children by small dogs but few reports of small dogs biting larger children. I doubt the biting behavior of dogs changed with child size. I suspect reporting of bites by small dogs diminished because the injuries caused to larger children were less significant. Conversely I suspect small children were more likely to be supervised or kept separate from larger dogs than smaller dogs.

The biting behavior of dogs didn’t change; the reporting behavior of bites changed.

Part of this is a lessening of biting behavior. A small child is more likely to play rough, hit, etc., on a dog than a larger child will. Kids under 5 are still learning interactions with cats and dogs, so there will be more mistakes. People often get the pets once they have kids. If they get the pet while the child is small, the child will often mistreat the pet (because the child doesn't know better). The parents ignore the behavior until the pet strikes back and then blames the pet.

In contrast, people who get the pet when the child is over 5 do much better because the child has been more socialized with animals in other homes. So, the child is less likely to do things that cause the pet to strike back. And if they do, the parent is more likely to acknowledge the child's behavior as the cause.

Pawz4me - as I mentioned above, the dog's purpose accounts for a majority of that difference. Shepherds, rotties, and even pits are brought home to "protect" and "guard". As such, they are put in a backyard and left. Unsocialized, uncontrolled, and often illtreated. To blame the breed in those cases when it is the owner who is failing is wrong. But that's what happens.

I had a neighbor once who bought a pit/rottie/chow/shar pei/dobie mix puppy. He told us "I'm going to treat him mean so he'll protect us". Fortunately, he let the puppy run loose and it disappeared within a couple days. Last I heard, it was living about 100 miles away with a good family... Now, had this guy raised this puppy, it would have been a huge problem dog. But, in its new home, it was the sweetest gentlest dog. It wasn't the breed that was going to make the dog dangerous, it was the owner.

As long as we allow people to use the excuse "it's the breed", we will always have these problems. Instead, we need to focus on the individual parings of dog and owner.

When I did fostering, I got comments about "taking too long" to place the dog and "being too picky" about the potential owners. But my dogs never came back into the system and were carefully matched with their new owners. As a result, I usually ended up with the hard to place dogs because I could be trusted.

camp-n-family wrote:

Ed_Gee wrote:
Based on data regarding dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2014, the dogs most likely to bite humans are:

Pit bulls.
Rottweilers.
Pit bull mixes.
German shepherds.
Bullmastiffs.
Wolf hybrids.
Huskies.
Akitas.

I question how that list was compiled. Not all bites get reported. Bites from large breed dogs are more likely to be reported than those from small dogs. Who’s going to report getting bit by a chihuahua or poodle? Some of the most aggressive dogs that bite are small breeds, only the damage that is caused is less, so reports will be lower.

Then rename this list "dog breeds most likely to cause serious injuries due to aggressive behavior". Happy??

I’m not saying small dogs bite more than big dogs; I’m saying the bites from small dogs are more underreported (excused or tolerated by society) than the bites from large dogs skewing the data being used.

So what is your analysis of the second report I provided?

BCSnob wrote:
You asked......

Dog bites in a U.S. county: age, body part and breed in paediatric dog bites
"Results

There was a negative correlation (?0.80, r2 = 0.64) between age and bite frequency. Children 0–3 years had a higher odds ratio (OR) of bites to the face {21.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17.61–25.33} and a lower OR of bites to the upper (OR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.12–0.18) and lower (OR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.14–0.27) extremities. ‘Pit bulls’ accounted for 27.2% of dog bites and were more common in children 13–18 years (p < 0.01). Shih?Tzu bites were more common in children three years of age and younger (p < 0.01)."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.14218

That study pretty much puts the lie to the belief that small dogs bite more. Add up the combined bite percentages for Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, Shih Tzus, Poodles, Cocker Spaniels and Yorkshire Terriers, the breeds listed in Table 3 that I assume are some of the ones most people are referring to when they use the very silly term "ankle biters" and it's 11.2 percent. Compare that to Pitbulls (27.2 percent) and German Shepherds (10.5 percent). The combined percentage of bites attributed to six small(ish) breeds is only 0.7 percent more than those attributed to just one large breed (GSDs). The bite percentages attributed to Pitbulls alone is well over two times that of the six small(ish) breeds combined. And I'm erring on the side of caution when adding up percentages for supposed "ankle biters." The study didn't separate breeds into sizes. I included the total percentage for Poodles, although it's unclear what percentage of bites was attributed to different sized Poodles, and I doubt anyone would put a Standard Poodle in the "ankle biter" category. Ditto Dachshunds, although IME standard Doxies are relatively rare. It's also interesting that Labs, often thought of as the ultimate family dog, had such a high percentage of bites (7.2 percent). That's a higher percentage than Shih Tzus, Poodles (all sizes), Cocker Spaniels and Yorkies combined.

(All that said--I do understand the myriad problems with compiling bite statistics, and agree that they are significant. I don't point out the figures in this post to either laud or attack any one type or size dog.)

Other articles indicate reports of bites to young children by small dogs but few reports of small dogs biting larger children. I doubt the biting behavior of dogs changed with child size. I suspect reporting of bites by small dogs diminished because the injuries caused to larger children were less significant. Conversely I suspect small children were more likely to be supervised or kept separate from larger dogs than smaller dogs.

The biting behavior of dogs didn’t change; the reporting behavior of bites changed.

Factors Associated With Bites to a Child From a Dog Living in the Same Home: A Bi-National Comparison

KGN=Kingston, Jamaica
SF=San Francisco, USA

"Characteristics of the Dog

The age of the dog at acquisition was inversely related to a child being bitten (RR = 0.77: 95% CI: 0.44–1.37—for a 1-year increase). Conversely, dogs that were acquired (as opposed to being born in their current owner’s home) were at higher risk (RR = 3.5: 95% CI: 0.49–24.98) for biting than dogs that were not (Figure 3B; Table 4). Both 1-year increases in dog age (RR = 0.90: 95% CI: 0.76–1.05) and length of ownership (RR = 0.91: 95% CI: 0.77–1.07) showed inverse associations with bites. Intact dogs were at overall higher risk for biting (RR = 2.74; 95% CI: 0.71–10.55) than neutered {Figure 3B and Prob(RR ? 1.25) = 87%}. This was also true when males (RR = 2.25; 95% CI: 0.3–16.67) and females (RR = 2.37; 95% CI: 0.30–16.89) were considered separately (Figure 3B; Table 4) with Prob(RR ? 1.25) = 72 and 74%, respectively. In KGN, smaller breeds (less than 9 kg or 20 pounds) were at higher risk for biting (RR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.16–5.10) than larger breeds (greater than 9 kg or 20 pounds), but not so in SF (RR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.26–4.41) (Figure 3B). The Prob(RR ? 1.25) for the KGN and SF comparisons were 96 and 42%, respectively. No dog with a sight or hearing problem had bitten a child in the preceding 2 years (Table 1)."

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2018.00066/full?utm_source=F-NTF&utm_medium=EMLX&utm_campaign=PRD_FEOPS_20170000_ARTICLE

The difficulty that people here have stated about determining their own dog's breed points out a flaw in dog bite statistics. Pit bulls are probably over represented in those statistics because of false identification. That being said, when serious bites occur, big dogs can and do inflict more damage.

Insurance companies are in the business of limiting risk, therefore they use statistics that are available. You really can't fault them too much, but I think that gives people who own poorly trained, poorly socialized, poorly bred dogs a pass on bad behavior. It also give society a false sense of security.

Having dealt with dogs of all breeds daily for 40+ years, I would rather work on a pit than many other breeds. BUT, when they are difficult, they are really difficult to deal with.

Doug, DVM

You asked......

Dog bites in a U.S. county: age, body part and breed in paediatric dog bites
"Results

There was a negative correlation (?0.80, r2 = 0.64) between age and bite frequency. Children 0–3 years had a higher odds ratio (OR) of bites to the face {21.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17.61–25.33} and a lower OR of bites to the upper (OR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.12–0.18) and lower (OR: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.14–0.27) extremities. ‘Pit bulls’ accounted for 27.2% of dog bites and were more common in children 13–18 years (p < 0.01). Shih?Tzu bites were more common in children three years of age and younger (p < 0.01)."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.14218