Are Pit Bulls Dangerous?

Looking at the data, it tells us that the incidence of dog bites is more a reflection on the relative popularity of a breed than a reflection on the breed.

As a breed becomes more popular, there are more individual dogs that could bite in the population. Historically, Great Danes were once the major perpetrators of vicious bites, followed by Rottweilers, and now Pit Bulls. This is directly related to the popularity of these breeds. While big dogs can physically do more damage if they bite, serious injuries can also result from small dog bites.

There are however, four factors which have remained consistent across time with regard to dog bites:

• Gender of the dog: unneutered male dogs are involved in 70-76% of reported dog bite incidents.
• Age of victim: 70% of fatal dog attacks and more than half of dog bite wounds requiring medical attention involve children younger than 12 years old.
• Gender of the victim: males are up to 3 times more likely to be bitten than females. Most at risk are 5-9 year old boys.
• Relationship of victim & dog: the family dog is involved in 25-33% of reported dog bites. Only 10% of reported dog bites are inflicted by dogs who are unknown to the victim.

So you can see that a number of factors are at work when dogs bite people. Educating people about these factors is one of the best ways to prevent dog bites in our community.

Public education should be at the forefront of a multi-faceted approach which includes controlling free-roaming dogs, licensing, vaccination, and legislation.

Singling out one particular breed of dog for control has not been shown to help prevent dog bites. What has been shown to work is mandatory spay/neuter laws for all breeds.

Dog attack risk

Violent interactions between humans and canines have been studied by the U.S. government, notably the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as academic veterinary researchers. The interpretation of these studies, breed identification and relevance issues, and variable circumstances have given rise to intense controversy.

In a 2014 literature review of dog bite studies, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) states that breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites. Controlled studies have not identified pit bulls as disproportionately dangerous. Pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified with cases involving very severe injuries or fatalities than other breeds, but the review suggests this may relate to the popularity of the breed, noting that sled dogs, such as Siberian Huskies, were involved in a majority of fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada. Bite statistics by breed are not tracked by the CDC, AVMA or the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). State Farm Insurance spokeswoman Heather Paul stated “Pit bulls in particular are often misidentified when a bite incident occurs, so reliable bite statistics related to the dogs’ breed are unreliable and serve no purpose.” The White House stated that “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it’s virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds”.

In a 2000 review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which examines data from both media reports and from the Humane Society of the United States, pit bull-type dogs were identified in approximately one-third of dog bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1981 and 1992. However, the review notes that studies on dog bite-related fatalities which collect information by surveying news reports are subject to potential errors, as some fatal attacks may not have been reported, a study might not find all relevant news reports, and the dog breed might be misidentified. The AVMA has also noted fundamental problems with tracking breed in dog bite-related fatalities. In a 2013 study of 256 fatalities in the United States from 2000 to 2009, the AVMA determined that valid breed determination was possible for only 17.6% of cases.

Contrary to popular myth, pit bulls do not have “locking jaws”. There is no physiological “locking mechanism” in the jaw muscle and bone structure of pit bulls or other dogs. Pit bull-type dogs, like other terriers, hunting and bull-baiting breeds, can exhibit a bite, hold, and shake behavior and at times refuse to release. Pit bulls also have wide skulls, well-developed facial muscles, and strong jaws, and some research suggests that pit bull bites are particularly serious because they tend to bite deeply and grind their molars into tissue. Breaking an ammonia ampule and holding it up to the dog’s nose can cause the dog to release its hold.

Breed-specific legislation

Widely reported pit bull attacks in popular media have resulted in the enactment of breed-specific legislation (BSL) in several jurisdictions. In some cases, breed-specific bans have been reversed or prohibited by state legislation. These perceptions have also led to increased premiums for liability insurance.

Breed-specific legislation has been largely found to be ineffective at reducing the number of dog attacks. Research has indicated that there is resistance by those who work in the adoption industry, applying a sharper distinction before allowing a dog to be labelled as a pit bull, as well as objections from veterinarians.

Many of the jurisdictions that restrict pit bulls apply their restriction to the modern American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and any other dog that has the substantial physical characteristics and appearance of those breeds. Such jurisdictions include the Canadian province of Ontario, and the U.S. cities of Miami and Denver. However, a few jurisdictions, such as Singapore, also classify the modern American Bulldog as a “pit bull-type dog”. In the United Kingdom, a pit bull is an American Pit Bull Terrier.

Courts in the United States and Canada have ruled that expert identification, when using published breed standards, is sufficient for the enforcement of breed-specific legislation.

Approximately 550 jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull-type dogs, and some government organizations such as the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of pit bull-type dogs, to restrictions and conditions on pit bull ownership. They often establish a legal presumption that a pit bull-type dog is prima facie a legally “dangerous” or “vicious” dog. In response, 16 states in the U.S. prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact BSL, though these restrictions do not affect military installations located within the states.

It is now generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation. Despite these holdings by the courts, there is some public skepticism over whether the laws are effective. One point of view is that pit bulls are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all pit bulls, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning pit bulls. Another point of view is that comprehensive “dog bite” legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet-keeping practices, is a better solution to the problem of dangerous pit bulls than BSL.

A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely, but should instead strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, for example, forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas from which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking specific breeds of dogs into public places. Finally, some governments, such as in Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds, and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to eliminate the breed’s population slowly through natural attrition.

The ASPCA said that, along with putative over-reporting, false reporting was a major contributor to public perceptions about the breed.

In England and Wales, the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 prohibits the ownership of American Pit Bull Terriers, along with three other breeds. The Act also bans the breeding, sale and exchange of these dogs. Similar legislation exists in Australia.

Commercial restrictions

Liability insurance

Dog owners in the United States can be held legally liable for injuries inflicted or caused by their dogs. In general, owners are considered liable if they were unreasonably careless in handling or restraining the dog, or if they knew beforehand that the dog had a tendency to cause injury (e.g., bite); however, dog owners are automatically considered liable if local laws hold an owner strictly liable for all damage caused by their dog, regardless of carelessness or foreknowledge of a dog’s tendencies. Homeowners and renters insurance policies typically provide liability coverage from US$100,000–300,000 for injuries inflicted by dogs; however, some insurance companies limit their exposure to dog bite liability claims by putting restrictions on dog owners that they insure. These restrictions include refusing to cover dog bites under the insurance policy, increasing insurance rates for homeowners with specific breeds, requiring owners of specific breeds to take special training or have their dogs pass the American Kennel Club Canine Good Citizen test, requiring owners to restrict their dogs with muzzles, chains, or enclosures, and refusing to write policies for homeowners or renters who have specific breeds of dogs.

Owners of rental properties may also be held liable if they knew an aggressive dog was living on their property and they did nothing to ensure the safety of other tenants at the property; as a result, many rental properties forbid pit bull-type dogs and any other breeds if the rental property’s insurance will not cover damage inflicted by that type of dog. The dog breeds most often targeted by insurance companies include pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, German Shepherd Dogs, Doberman Pinschers, Akitas (Akita Inu and American Akitas), and Chow Chows.

In 2013, Farmers Insurance notified policy holders in California that it will no longer cover bites by pit bulls, Rottweilers and wolf-dog hybrids. A spokeswoman for Farmers said that those breeds account for more than a quarter of the agency’s dog bite claims.

Air carrier restrictions

Several air carriers embargo certain dog breeds, due to the effect of high temperature and humidity on brachycephalic animals. The following table has a sampling of air carrier embargoes on dogs.