From my own experience with many dogs, pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breed, unless they have been trained (and abused) by their owners. Each day I take my own dog - a cattle breed - to a local dog park. I have seen many pit bulls at the park, and my dog likes to play with them. ALL of the pits bulls and pit bull mixes I have seen at the park, around 20 or so, have been good-natured dogs. Some of them play rough, but so does my dog. There have been only a few instances where the dogs got too rough and had to be separated. I believe that what a dog becomes and how it behaves depends upon the treatment and training by the owner, not the breed itself.
Yeah, like RPGs and handguns. Honestly, if you dont press the trigger, a RPG is quite harmless. That’s why I’ve never understood the reason I’m not allowed to carry one.
I’ll just say that every pit bull I have met has been a big, lovable dork.
I will also say that the primary evidence for their “danger” is also anecdotal, and that real statistics are lacking at best. Yes, I’ve seen and read the CDC report, and I’ve participated in numerous discussion about it. It’s not remotely convincing enough to justify banning the breed.
Certain *descriptions *of dog consistently list notably high in dog attack statistics. However, on no account should you believe that those descriptions of dog correlate in any way with the actual breed of dog nominally of the same name, or you will be righteously excoriated by certain posters for your utterly unwarranted attack on dogs of the breed in question.
However, you might want to consider caution around dogs that could end up being described - were they to attack you - as being one of the descriptions of dogs that tend consistently to end up at or near the top of lists of dog attacks.
Welcome, laurence. Generally, when you post a thread about one of Cecil’s columns, you are asked to provide a link to it for other members’ convenience. I assume this is the column you are referring to.
I don’t see where your cite says that the CDC say that the lists are “scientifically invalid hearsay”. But in any event, in case you missed it, perhaps you should go back and read my second sentence.
No more dangerous than any other powerful dog. The issue is not with the dog - rather with some of the people attracted to the reputation of the breed.
If you are going to own a dog with the potential (through strength and size) to be dangerous if not socialized or trained, then you need to be responsible enough to do that work.
Exactly. The issue isn’t whether there is any increased risk that dogs-that-get-described-in-post-bite-surveys-as-pitbulls might bite you. The issue is whether such a dog might bite you because of their training and who they are owned by and so on. I certainly don’t mind being bitten as long as I know it is not as a consequence of the inherent nature of the dog.
“Despite these limitations and concerns, the data
indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs
accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States
between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that
they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the
United States during that same period and, thus, there
appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities”
Otara, thank you for the excellent example of quoting out of context, ignoring what else has been posted in the thread, and ignoring Cecil’s own article. Well done.
Frankly, you’d also be better off providing relevant citations instead of snark like this. It doesn’t further your cause.
From the CDC report:
Practical alternatives cited include:
In other words, Rots and Pits can be and have been a problem, but breed-specific legislation and policy is silly given the small proportion of these dogs that really are dangerous, and breed-specific legislation does not address the problem effectively given that practically any breed can pose a threat. If you’re worried about dangerous dogs, invest in animal control and dog training.
Exactly. Personally I pay for animal control and dog training for all the dogs in my neighbourhood and everywhere I go. Seems fair. After all it’s only my silly preference for not being bitten that makes it necessary.
As do I. Our local Humane society offers low-cost training in addition to animal control services in conjunction with the police. My tax dollars at work.
Yes, and the system works well. Responsible dog owners who take their dogs to this sort of training ensure their dogs are low risk, which means that only dogs belonging to irresponsible owners present a higher risk. And as I’ve said, I certainly don’t mind being bitten as long as I know it is not as a consequence of the inherent nature of the dog, but rather a reflection of an irresponsible owner.
Having lived in pit bull-rich areas of the US (the deep south, low-income areas of the northeast, and in AZ), I feel I’ve seen enough pit bulls and their owners to make a stab at the true root of the pit bull issue. Trashy people love pit bulls, just like they love old American “sports cars”, 4x4 trucks, guns, tattoos, drugs, etc. The dogs of drunk, obnoxious losers end up just like their kids: angry, abused, and engaging in antisocial behavior. Pit bulls are status symbols in trailer parks, ghettos, and barrios all over the country. The situation with Michael Vick has brought up this “culture”.
“Are pit bulls dangerous?” is like asking “Do mobile homes cause meth lab explosions?”, “Does subsidized housing cause drive-by shootings?”, or “Do quinceañeras cause pregnancy?” The neglected and/or abused children mixed with the neglected and/or abused dogs of people who shouldn’t have either is a ticking time bomb. Stir it in a pot of domestic violence, poverty, a total lack of any sense of responsibility, and an overall environment of filth.
These people will go on and on about the differences among “red nose”, “blue”, “brindle”, etc.; the differences among American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American bull dogs, etc. But ask them to identify a St. Bernard, Siberian Husky, Golden Retriever, Dachshund, Basset Hound or any other easily-identifiable breed and they’ll look at you like a deer in headlights.
I don’t own a dog nor do I know people with pit bulls, although I do like dogs and I don’t feel like I have a bias one way or the other. It seems like there are some who dismiss any possibility that one dog breed may be more prone to violence than another. From my own (possibly naive) experience there are many breeds of dogs that have distinct traits. My mother has two terriers that go absolutely bananas when they see a squirrel which I believe they have been bred to do. A neighbor’s retriever doesn’t care one bit about squirrels but will play fetch until your arm falls off. That doesn’t mean that every dog exhibits the traits the breed was bred for (one of the above terriers loves to play fetch as well) but a dog purposefully bred for violence and toughness certainly seems plausible.
That said, I can totally believe that the biggest factor is the owner.
Yeah, we get it. Tres droll. But here’s the point. No one is claiming that the breed of dog matters to the person who was bitten. The claim is that there is no evidence that any breed of dog, or any particular kind of dog that fits a particular description, is more or less likely to bite than any other.
You might as well say that you don’t mind being bitten by extraterrestrial dogs, since they are here to save humanity.