1. I'm a pit advocate. I own them and foster them for adoption. I believe there are three reasons you see pits reported in these attacks so often:
1. They are the current breed of choice for irresponsible owners. Before them, it was Rottweilers; before that, Dobermans.

2. Irresponsible owners often chain their dogs. The dog is usually in the yard, alone, with no interaction and no socialization, often beginning in young puppyhood. They are barely given the basics of survival, much less any training on how to interact with other dogs or people. When they almost inevitably break out, they are dangerous.

3. People are unfamiliar with the breed. There is no registered breed named "pit bull". This term is used to refer to several different breeds who look similar. However, people will label many, many different kinds of dogs "pit bulls", including my purebred Rott. Anymore, any mixed breed medium to large dog involved in an incident will more likely than not be called a "pit bull" by the press.

Absolutely, the owners should be severely punished. The dog should be euthanized. Human aggression is a fatal defect in any dog, pits included (dog aggression is a totally different matter). Unfortunately, penalties for attacks will do little to deter them, as the people who own these dogs really do not care, or do not have the sense to foresee the problem. A better preventative measure is to outlaw chaining. It won't totally solve the problem, but it is a huge start.

If you're interested in learning more, you can go to pbrc.net for pit bull information, or dogsdeservebetter.com for more information on chaining and its consequences.

Sorry for the rant. But I love "pit bulls", and it breaks my heart to see what they suffer due to malicious and ignorant owners and lack of knowledge of others.

Posted at 8:28AM on May 7th 2008 by Jen

2. I was attacked by a mixed breed which I refer to as a sheep dog when I was 4yrs. old. I think that any attack is terrible. But too think that one breed is more or only likey to attack leaves peaple unprepared for what can happen. I have friends that own each of what was listed as potential attackers and find the dogs to be meer babies in the presence of their owners and people they know. They are protective of their family including the children who are very active and playful with the family pets. So i would say that it is mostly how any animal is cared for, treated, and then some on the personality of the animal. If you own an animal thats personality trait includes to be aggresively protective of its family and property then it is on you to make sure that the animal is not put in a position where is feels it must defend its self or feel treatened in any way.

Posted at 9:30AM on May 7th 2008 by nicole

3. Finally, SOMEONE makes some sense!!

Posted at 11:07PM on May 9th 2008 by courtney

4. In California a coyotte attacked a 3 year old girl and tried to eat her. Fortunately the little girl was only bit in the buttocks and had a diaper on but still got a few puncture marks. The Nanny saved her life. The wildlife and police officers are searching for the coyote but unfortunately have not found it. So do we REGISTER and OUTLAW COYOTES? I once owned a pittbull that was a sweetheart. It is the dogowner and not the breed that is responsible for the dog. I would kill my dog if it hurt a child. Actually I owned a second weird mutt that bit me a few times and before I even got a chance to beat that dog my pittbull attacked it. The pittbull did not hurt the mutt because they were friends but let the mutt know that it better not attack me ever again.

Posted at 3:24PM on May 13th 2008 by Mark

5. I agree with Jen. Proper socialization is the key. My sister has a pit/rot mix. He looks just like Scooby Doo, and just as friendly/stupid. He would never hurt a fly, unless it was in defense of my sister. He has been socialized with dozens of other dogs, training classes, etc.

My little cousin (not so little anymore) was deathly affraid of my little terrier mix growing up... why?.. because when he was a toddler he was attacked by a little toy dog. (he was fine with big dogs, just not little ones)

It can happen with any breed, any dog. The key is responsibility, something more and more Americans are lacking.

Now, I'm not advocating being an idiot and leaving "good" dogs unattended either. Dogs can be socialized, but just like people, you never know what might push them too far. (But that also falls on the burden of responsible people)

Posted at 8:50AM on May 7th 2008 by Derek

6. What the dog does, the dog OWNER should be charged with. So if your dog bites the face off of some kid, you get charged with assualt and attempted murder. Owning a dog isn't a right, it's a liberty.

Posted at 9:01AM on May 7th 2008 by eugene

7. My little dog was recently attacked by my BIL's pitbull mix. He *knew* that my dog doesn't get along with female dogs and yet ignored our requests to keep his dog separated from our dog. As a result, my dog started a fight but she was no match for a pitbull mix with powerful jaws and she got bitten which required stitches (that *we* paid for). Because of this incident, my BIL's dogs are not allowed inside our house and if my son is outside with the dogs, the dogs have to be on a leash. He insists that his dog is sweet, etc. I said yes, I agree but her behavior is still unpredictable because they only got her a few months ago after she turned one.

It really makes me angry that dog owners think their dogs are harmless. I've had both my dogs for 5-7 years and *still* keep an eye on them when they are interacting with other dogs or children. One never knows what may provoke dogs, even after years of having them in your care.

So in response to your post, I don't think granting or not granting licenses will solve the problem. Because I live in such a small town, neither of my dogs have dog licenses (although they are vaccinated, etc). It's too easy to get away without having a dog license unless your dog is the kind that runs away. I think more drastic measures are required such as hefty fines and requirements to attend dog training classes or something like that.

Posted at 9:09AM on May 7th 2008 by Keri

8. why didnt you separate your dog from his if you knew your dog could cause a problem?

Posted at 11:59PM on May 9th 2008 by Renee

9. The dogs WERE separated but between going outside and inside, they somehow met up. I wasn't there but because it is our home, it is my BIL's responsibility to control his dog at all times. He thinks things will be fine if we allow the dogs to interact to get used to each other. He does not respect the fact that we know our dog and know that she won't get along with ANY female dogs.

Posted at 1:25AM on May 10th 2008 by Keri

10. Part of the reason you hear more about "pit bulls" is that the media tends to report every dog mauling as being by a "pit bull", no matter what the actual breed of the dog is. If it's short-haired and muscular, they call it a "pit bull".

In the 70s, every dog attack was reported as being by a Doberman, in the 90s it was Rottweilers.

Posted at 9:30AM on May 7th 2008 by Trish C

11. But you know, it's not the initial attack which is the worst thing about pit bulls, it's the stories I read about their ferocity--that when they *do* attack, it's worse, because a) they have such powerful jaws, and b) they are bred to latch on and not give up. I remember one story of a put bull that chased a woman into her house and then broke in through the window to try to continue attacking her. It just seems like a switch flips for them (and maybe some others too) and they go berserk. And they're big enough that this makes them a real threat.

Now if you say, other breeds do this too, I just haven't heard those stories, perhaps that's true. But I am wary of all dogs, but most concerned about my ability to fight off a dog *especially bred* for fighting and ferocity. And that is a difference between dogs like that and mutts/herding dogs/etc.

Posted at 10:29AM on May 7th 2008 by emjaybee

12. We have a Pit Bull that is very, very nice. And...this is the bad part...we had a black lab that attacked by me and my 2 year old son. We have no explanation for the behavior, but we do have a lot of crazy theories. I can say that it isn't the owner that is the problem because we had two dogs, treated the same, raised the same, and only one turned on us - the LAB! I am still in shock about it...

I don't think those dogs should have been off-leash. No dogs should un-leashed at a public place unless it is a designated off-leash area for dogs. Even known "good" dogs can turn on someone just as one did in our family - so to assume a dog will behave is dangerous. They are animals after all...not people. You cannot really reason with a dog, even if they are very very domesticated.

Posted at 10:40AM on May 7th 2008 by Charlise

13. While it is true that any dog of any breed might attack with the right provocation, our neighbor's chihuahua is not going to kill my 2 yo (at least not in a very short period of time) while one big bite from the dog (I can't tell exactly what breed it is, but it is large enough to have knocked out several fence boards, repeatedly) down the street likely could.

Personally, I prefer bigger dogs to little ones - I'd rather have a Golden Retriver than a Pomeranian. And it might be true that small dogs bite more often, which is something I've heard before. But the fact is that certain breeds of dog, and certain size dogs, can do much more damage much more quickly than others. A newborn left alone for a moment with a chihuahua might be bitten, but will be okay - a Pit Bull, Rottweiler, or any number of other dogs could kill a newborn in moments. This is not saying the breeds are necessarily more vicious, because I honestly don't know. But it is just fact and common sense that they are able to do much more harm much more quickly.

An elephant might not be any meaner than a mouse, but if I had to pick which would to leave alone with my kids in a room, I'm going to pick the mouse, and it goes the same, on a somewhat different scale, with dogs. I don't understand why the owners of some of these dogs can't wrap their heads around that one.

On a related note, there was an article in our newspaper yesterday about wolf-dogs. Apparently someone dropped 9 of them off at a local shelter, along with a rottweiler. The shelter officials feared she was trying to breed them, to make a super-fighting dog. How scary is that?

And I once knew someone who had a wolf-dog (illegally, I'm sure, although I didn't realize it at the time). She was a sweet, gentle dog, from what I saw of her, but the owner assured me I should not be even slightly aggressvie toward him, or I would quickly see a different side of her.

Posted at 10:50AM on May 7th 2008 by Judy

14. Dogs - *of any kind* should not be in proximity to children. To do so it inhumane on two fronts: You are putting te child in grave danger, AND you are asking of the dog more than he is capable. Dogs are nice, sweet, cute, cuddly - until they aren't. That is just the nature of most of the animal kingdom. Dogs do not have the capacity for restraint - if a kid strikes them as yummy or as a threat, that's all it takes. Kids + dogs = impending doom. It happens A LOT, and it could happen A LOT more. I notice that some people get emotionl about this topic, defensive or something. No one is saying that dogs aren't great, etc., just that they do not have a place among children.

Now, as to the issue of the dog owners' liability: WHAT? I kind of despise pet ownership, but even so I cannot get down with this. To subject owners to liability would be an application of res ipsa loquitur, except that the dog is quite clearly *not* within the control of the owner. This underscores the point I made in the first paragraph: No human can dictate a dog's behavior, therefore no dogs should be around kids. Further, if no human can dictate a dog's behavior, then no human can be reasonably liable for a dog's behavior. This is merely a matter of logic, and in order to disagree with it one must claim that a human DOES dictate a dog's behavior. (Preemptively: A least does not constitute control of the dog's behavior.

Posted at 11:16AM on May 7th 2008 by Mel

15. Wow, so many typos there. The last line should read: "A leash does not constitute control of the dog's behavior."

Posted at 11:19AM on May 7th 2008 by Mel

16. Mel, I disagree with the statement "if no human can dictate a dog's behavior, then no human can be reasonably liable for a dog's behavior". If the owner has no control over a dog's behavior then by the simple fact of ownership they assume liability. You mention logic but it's just a silly argument... to take it to an extreme... if I have a gun that for some reason is prone to going off uncontrollably and I'm walking down the street, it discharges and kills somebody, am I un-liable simply because I didn't cause the gun to discharge? By simply owning a dangerous item I'm responsible and liable for it's actions.

Now I'm not saying all dogs are dangerous or uncontrollable... I just had an issue with your argument.

Posted at 3:37PM on May 7th 2008 by EskimoPie

17. This story makes me sick and it's one that's repeated all too often. I'm sorry if this offends anyone but we have to STOP applying human qualities and traits to dogs and we especially must STOP referencing those traits when trying to excuse the behavior of a dog that has become vicious and destructive. Dogs are NOT people, they are animals - animals that will react instinctively in unfamiliar, unsupervised situations. I think dog owners who allow their animals to roam free in populated areas are among the most irresponsible people in our society - right down there with drunk drivers. In a way they are WORSE than drunk drivers becuase at least when faced with the hard facts a drunk driver won't arrogantly defend their behavior by saying "you don't understand why drunks commit crimes."

Dog owners need to understand that a lot of people don't want to deal with their animals jumping on them and chasing them when they are out in public. It's an act of supreme selfishness to acquit their animal's unwelcome behavior by saying "oh, don't worry - he's friendly."

I think any dog owner who allows their animal to run loose should be heavily fined and I have zero problem with dog bite lawsuits in our court system becuase if enough dog owners experience enough financial pain perhaps behavior will slowly change. I would also like to see some municipalites show some courage and pass ordinances that say any dog found unattended in public will be impunded and euthanized. If dog owners understood the risk of being irresponsible - behavior just might change for the better.

Posted at 12:32PM on May 7th 2008 by CraigG

18. Parents also need to understand that not all dogs are children friendly, or stranger friendly for that matter. I cannot count the number of times I have had my dogs out, on a leash, walking next to me and a child comes running up and sticks his or her face right in my dogs face. Or just reaches out and pets my dogs, or wraps their arms around them and hangs on them. That is very dangerous behavior!

I do not let my dogs run around bothering people, both for my dogs safety and everyone else around me. But I am just amazed at the amount of children that don't know any better, I was taught not to pet a strange dog when I was very young. Most of the time the parents of these kids are watching their children run up to my dog, and don't even bother to ask if it's ok.

My dogs aren't aggressive, but they are dogs and although I have a pretty good idea of how they will react in certain situations, I never assume. My little dog is scared to death of children, I think he'd be the first of the two dogs to bite, especially if they tried to pick him up (which children often do with little dogs) my bigger dog just doesn't like them and gets upset when they hang on her.

I don't appreciate having my dogs out and kids running up and squeezing them... I also don't like when I pull my dogs away and inform the child and parent that they aren't the friendliest dogs towards children, that I get dirty looks. I'm not doing anything wrong.

Even if my dogs were the friendliest dogs on the planet.. you should never, ever let your kid pet a strange dog, or be alone with a dog... any dog. Big or small, it doesn't matter.

I understand the fear of dog attacks, I really do... I grew up around dogs and am not afraid of them in general, yet I never reach out to pet a strange dog, and if they are off a leash, in the back of a truck or something like that, I don't even make eye contact with them.

I fully agree that unresponsible dog owners should be punished. But I have to say that I see many more children run up to dogs they don't know, or hanging all over dogs they do know than I see dogs roaming off a leash. You never know what can set off a dog, especially one you don't know anything about, but teaching your children how to behave around dogs can go a long way in preventing dog bites and attacks... for every vicious dog attack you hear about, how many children were bit by a dog, probably at home or by a dog they know?

Posted at 5:36PM on May 7th 2008 by 3FC

19. I completely agree!

Posted at 7:24AM on May 8th 2008 by ninainindia

20. Could someone PLEASE explain to me what exactly is wrong with a LEASH?! I grew up with dogs and I've owned dogs for much of my adult life and would never even consider taking them off-lead outside of a dog park or designated off-lead area.

Posted at 3:48PM on May 7th 2008 by CLM