question about camping with a pittbull

[gpeade]

The wife and I just bought a camper and want to get back into camping. This time around we have two dogs. Both are rescue "mutts" and one is part Pitt. First campground I called to make a reservation won't allow him because he is a "dangerous" breed. If any of you own bulls you know the BS and aggravation that goes along with this.
My question for you guys is this...what is your experiences with different campgrounds? Now I know I can say he isn't a Pitt but do campgrounds generally ask for vaccination records? These state he is a Pitt-mix so I can't hide it then.

How do those of you with larger dogs deal with this issue?

Thanks

[camperdave]

One problem with the stats is that if a friendly golden retriever bites your kid, you're likely to forgive it and move on. If a Pit bites, it's straight to the cops. The reporting is not a level playing field.

I'm a huge fan of stats in general (it's kind of my job, lol). I have nothing against insurance companies using what they have available. But I don't think they are fair and balanced.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[toedtoes]

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.

[toedtoes]

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.

[toedtoes]

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.

[westernrvparkow]

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??

[BCSnob]

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?

[Pawz4me]

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.)

[BCSnob]

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.

[BCSnob]

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

[dturm]

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

[BCSnob]

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

[Pawz4me]

I have no dog in this fight. I like them all and try not to be a breedist.

But I always find it very interesting in these threads that so many dispute bite statistics that implicate PBs and other medium/large dogs and in the same sentence or paragraph state emphatically that small dogs bite more, with no source or statistic whatsoever to support that. So alleging one set of statistics is wrong is fine, but pulling your own statistics out of thin air with no sourcing at all other than "because I say so" is true. Right.

Lack of critical thinking skills is a thing, as apparently is wishful thinking.

Now I know--multiple people will chime in now and list all their anecdotal experience that "proves" their claim right. To that I say an anecdote is just an anecdote, and it's not likely any of us has enough experience to make a statistically significant sampling.

My own anecdotal experience -- As someone who has volunteered in rescue for decades, I've been nipped and outright bitten by dogs of all sizes, and by more than a few cats (whose bites are the worst). Thankfully only one of those bites required medical attention and stitches.. And yes, that was by a dog who weighed in around 80 pounds. I didn't hold the bite against her, she was a very scared dog and I did something I shouldn't have. Matter of fact, I ended up adopting her. But that was long before all the breed bans and insurance issues. Would I do it again? Probably not. She was listed as a mix of one of the breeds that would now make getting insurance a challenge, and I'm past the age of wanting to deal with hassles like that. Plus in today's climate she would no doubt have been euthanized. Sigh.

[K-9_HANDLER]

Was seasonal camper last year for first time. The CG we stayed at had specific breeds that were not allowed listed in the contract.

[Nicholsfamily05]

We have a pit mix, lab mix and a full blood hound(my retired police k9).
Our pit is mixed with a lab and he was a rescue. Found him as a 4-5 month old puppy on the road at work one day. He is almost 10 now.
The vet we go to is an awesome guy and understands how dumb people are about the breeds.
When we first brought him in after we adopted him and he labeled him as a lab mix.

We have only had on issue 2 years ago and the owners of the campground told us we would have to leave. We asked them to come to our site and meet “Duck”. Since we have been camping their for years and the staff loves him.
They came by and hung out with us and loved him and no more issues.

[Old-Biscuit]

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.

If you are biten and treated by doctor/hospital/clinic THEY will report the bite to Animal Control which may or may not do an investigation.

I startled by Border Collie when she was sleeping....she was 12 yrs old at the time. Had her since 3 month old puppy.
She SNAPPED and I was wounded on my hand.
Couple days later my hand was swollen/angry red....due to me not keeping the wound clean. Had been working on irrigation system.

So went to Clinic ...they cleaned it up/got shot and some pills.
They also informed me that because it was a dog bite they had to report it.
Animal Control called me a few days later.
We spoke/they closed the 'case'

Bites/damages/deaths/BREEDS etc are routinely reported. Data compiled and used by Insurance underwriters.
Those that do the most damage/cause deaths are the ones most likely to be on the 'Aggressive Breed List'
Not a surprise that those on the list made the list.
Simple.......