Hi Cecil,
As a fighter of ignorance, I just wanted to question your info on this post on pits.
“Although there’s some argument over their origin, pit bulls were probably the result of crosses between bulldogs and working terriers to produce a new type of dog for, among other uses, pit fighting — hence the name.”
I’ll admit, I have only been researching this for about an hour, online. But it seems that there is an overwhelming opinion that pit bulls were not originally bred to fight-- they were bred to control livestock.
An important distinction to make clear, given the controversy of the breed.
One thing the column neglected to mention (possibly due to space considerations) is that pit bulls and other “dangerous” breeds are more frequently owned by macho thug wannabes who think it enhances their masculinity to have a mean dog, so abuse the dog until it turns vicious.
I grew up with Dobermans, and have been on friendly terms with a wide range of dog breeds (spent a lot of time at dog shows as a child). It’s been my experience that a properly raised medium-to-large dog is generally calmer and less snappish than small breeds, particularly Dachshunds. I certainly realize that any breed has a range of differing individuals, I’m just expressing a general observation that I’m well aware has individual exceptions.
QFT. Small yappy dogs are actually usually the meanest. But all they can do is gnaw on your ankles. A Pit bull has a mean set of jaws and teeth, and is bred to bite hard and hang on. Of course, it’s mainly the humans who are at fault, not the breed.
Look…uh…thanks for the sentiment, but I believe my reputation here as the Board’s most dedicated advocate for pit bulls and debunker of myths and falsehoods about them gives me the credibility to say:
I am sorry, I would love for it to be true, but I think there is no credible historical support for the claim they were “bred to control livestock.”
My understanding, based on years of reading widely on the subject, is that bulldogs (and by this I mean a tall, straight-legged, unwrinkled, square-headed descendant of the “Molosser” type dogs, not the wrinkly potbellied English Bulldogs we see today) were indeed bred, perhaps for two thousand years, to control livestock. Most especially, to bite a bull on the nose and hang on. Nobody’s ever really said why that would be necessary; I assume it might have something to do with castration.
Anyway, in Great Britain, the “amusement” of bull-baiting, in which dogs bit bulls for “sport,” was popular until around 1800, when the public conscience began to turn away from such cruelty. In 1802 a bill was proposed to outlaw it, but it took more than 30 years before a law was formally passed.
But some time around 1800 or so, the handwriting was clearly on the wall, bull-baiting was on the way out. It was not really possible to hide a bull in your house, but the dogs were much more portable and of course it was possible to conceal their purpose, so dog-fighting began to rise among the bull-baiting crowd.
The problem was, as I understand it anyway, bulldogs made for boring fights. A dog bred for two thousand years to clamp and hold will clamp and hold. So these “dogmen” crossed the bulldogs with terriers (the “Black-and-Tan” terrier is usually the one I see cited) to add athleticism and action to these terrible contests.
The resulting dogs were called “bull-and-terrier” dogs in Britain, and when they were brought to the US, where they were typically fought in “pits,” the name “pit bull terrier” became commonplace.
So, while bulldogs per se can indeed be said to have been bred for “controlling” livestock, that’s only half the story, more or less. Pit bulls proper were apparently indeed bred to fight dogs.
Not that they’re necessarily doomed to fight instinctively, mind you. Michael Vick’s infamous case is an interesting statistical study.
Behold the Summary of Facts [warning: .pdf and legalese] both Vick and the prosecution agreed were true.
More than 70 dogs were seized in the raid at the Moonlight Road address. The number that were pit bulls (as opposed to other breeds) is hard to determine; some sites say 53, some 58, most “more than 50.” But the Statement of Fact also mentions the killing of 6-8 pit bulls by Vick and associates, and a previous episode of killing an unspecified number of pit bulls (in which Vick claims not to have participated personally).
A rough estimate would be to say about 70 pit bulls, all selected by Vick’s handlers to be “aggressive,” passed through his professionally-designed program of brutalization. In a process not entirely unlike military boot camp, and essentially for the same purpose, the dogs were deprived and mistreated with the intention of erasing their former individuality and instilling a will to fight.
Vick only got five of these 70-odd dogs willing to enter the ring and fight, at all, under pain of death…and only one of them was a consistent winner.
Think about that. The most feared fighting dogs known, hand-selected from “fighting” bloodlines and systematically brutalized by a paid expert, and they only got one out of seventy that was any good at it.
Many of the dogs seized in the raid are now successfully placed in loving homes. The tale of how this came to be is dramatic – prior to this case, seized “fighting dogs” were typically destroyed when a court case was concluded. Two organizations, BADRAP and Best Friends, assisted by some smaller groups, coordinated the efforts to persuade the judge to try something different.
Some of the the dogs were not re-homed, but are held in permanent custody at the Best Friends sanctuary. In many cases, the reason is court fiat that those dogs not be adopted out, not necessarily because the dogs are permanently mean.
At any rate, only one of the 70-odd won multiple fights, and a lot more than one of them were adopted into family situations with the (clearly conservative) approval of the court, so that tells you something.
I’m not necessarily convinced small yappy dogs are the meanest. My gut feeling is that they’re just not as well trained because they’re small and can’t/don’t cause as much damage as a larger breed dog, so owners don’t quite have the same incentive to keep them in check. After all, if a shih tzu nips you, it’s generally not a big deal. A rottie? You might have a serious problem on your hands. But that’s just a gut feeling.
Anyhow, anecdotally, we just adopted a shelter pit bull in July, and it’s the first dog either my wife or I have owned. He has been a wonderful dog. I also volunteer at the shelter and walk a lot of pitbulls (they’re about 85% pitbulls or mixes there) and I generally have a very favorable impression of them. From what I’ve researched before I decided to adopt one (and there is a lot of BS from both pro- and anti-pitbull advocates out there), Sailboat’s explanation conforms with what I understand the history of the breed to be.
I mostly agree, and in another thread I made more or less the same point: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=667292&page=8
*Yes, and I HATE dudes who let their teeny tiny little yappy dogs take over as Alpha “isn’t he so cute?” they say as the rat gnaws at my ankle.
Look, human- YOU have to be the Alpha. Even if the dog is bun-sized. To do otherwise is to perform a sort of animal abuse.
*
Still, even so- the rat sized dogs do tend to be meaner, even if it can be their owners fault.
PB’s can be wonderful loving doggies no doubt. But (and I realize this will get many mad at me) I do agree on banning the* breeding* (not owning, breeding) of them, unless you are a registered breeder. Too many of these wonderful dogs are bred solely to die a horrible painful death as fighting dogs.
Here here! Or hear hear! Whichever you prefer, this would be a wonderful idea. And I’d suggest a substantial fee for that license, and an even substantialer fee for anyone violating that law, and the substantialest fee for those that breed weiner dogs illegally.
And yes, it is the ‘aw! how cute and pwecious’ lack of training that causes those little dogs to be such an evil and dangerous blight on society.
I’ll see that and raise it. I would like the law to read that you need to have some sort formal education in animal husbandry in order to get licensed to breed and that no animals are allowed to be adopted out until they are old enough to be spayed or neutered (which is closer to six months old for females). It won’t happen though.
I have had nothing but positive experiences with the bull breeds and have owned a pit bull mix in the past. I have a good friend who is a vet tech and he will consistantly tell you that the only *breed *of dog that ever frightens him are Chihuahuas. They are also the only breed that have caused him to get stiches on more than one occasion.
If you removed the bully breeds/mixes and chihuahua types from the animal shelters there wouldn’t be nearly enough shelter dogs to keep up with demand. They are the bulk of the dogs in shelters – and most are not neutered when they come in. Since bully breeds have a reputation (well-deserved, according to statistical data) of being more dangerous than other dogs, they also tend to be the dogs no one adopts. In the Northeast, some shelters routinely import non-bully breeds for adoption (from the South) because there already are not enough produced locally.
The idea of licensing dog breeders to solve dog overpopulation is one that comes from a severe misunderstanding of the people who produce puppies. There are basically four categories, none of which have any communication with any of the others.
“Puppy mills” raise very large quantities of dogs, in the manner of livestock, with profit as the only motive. The breeding dogs are usually treated inhumanely and the puppies produced are usually genetically and psychologically defective. They are sold via the internet and pet shops, mainly. The Amish are one of the main groups that run puppy mills. Most puppy mills are ALREADY LICENSED. Since what they produce is so poor quality, a disproportion of these animals end up in shelters.
“Backyard” breeders. People who have a dog and their neighbor has another dog of the opposite sex and then, puppies. These are mostly mixes, and are mostly given away. As spay/neuter programs become culturally more and more mainstream, this has become a smaller and smaller source of puppies. Subcategory would be the blue-collar, southern, and hispanic men who are the main breeders of dogs for fighting. They tend to keep male dogs intact because of the macho cultures. Zero licensing, and no way to license.
“Purebred” breeders. These are hobbyists who usually raise a litter or two a year, they are generally passionate dog lovers who show their dogs in dog shows. They usually belong to a local and national club devoted to their breed, have signed a ‘breeder code of ethics’ through their club, which for example requires that breeders take back and rehome any dogs they have ever bred that need new homes. Few are licensed. Nobody makes money doing this, it is an expensive hobby. They are not a big source of abandoned dogs, but because they are generally responsible, vocal, and highly visible, they are often targeted as ‘the problem’. They aren’t the problem.
“Working” breeders. These people raise dogs bred to do something: herd sheep or cattle, hunt raccoons or feral pigs, retrieve shot game birds, sniff out drugs, protection work. Most but not all of these dogs are purebreds registered in a working registry (totally separate from the American Kennel Club). Some are professional dog breeders but most are more the level of hobbyists. Very few are licensed. They tend to be more hardnosed and less sentimental than the show dog breeders but they are very into dogs and breed very carefully, as their clientele demands performance. Not a big source of abandoned dogs.
The biggest sources of abandoned dogs are puppy mills (licensed!), vague and irresponsible pet owners (a dwindling source), and people of cultures which have a very different attitude about dogs than the mainstream, like the ethnic Mexicans who breed pit bulls in my county. Believe me, trying to create licensed breeders out of people engaged in or at least supportive of dog fighting has a low probability of return.
The pounds were full before the Pits became popular. They’ve always been filled with mutts and the popular breeds. It’s the popularity of the breed that causes the Pit Bull to be considered more dangerous than others. The perceived most dangerous dog will be the most popular breed at the time. And any dog that people are afraid of will be perceived as that popular dangerous breed.
Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, collected from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period. The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18% (16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81% (13).
The next leading breed of dog causing fatalities was the Rottweiler (14%).
Between 1982 and 2011, bite statistics of the US and Canada combined show:
The combination of pit bulls, rottweilers, their close mixes and wolf hybrids:
77% of attacks that induce bodily harm
73% of attacks to children
81% of attack to adults
68% of attacks that result in fatalities
76% that result in maiming