Sure. Any resources should certainly be in proportion to those things which cause the most and least problems.
That’s a fair point. Probably there’s other dogs that are more likely and less likely to be identified - i’d imagine Dobermans probably get identified more often too, and poodles less. I’d say you’re probably right, I.D. would be balanced against the favour of Pit Bulls.
What the “looks like a pitbull, must be deadly” group of people seem to be missing is, how many times didn’t a pitbull-type bite some human or other person’s pet?
No, that’d be too confusing; let’s concentrate on the negative aspects of pit bull type ownership!
Using this logic, I can make the claim that nuclear weapons are safer than lawn darts.
You can, but it’d be a very silly comparison! One is an inanimate object and doesn’t interact with its environment, the other isn’t and does.
???
Hiroshima, mon amour?
Anecdotally, most if not all of the severe dog attacks covered by our local media have been by pit bulls. However, most if not all of the same attacks have come in the lowest-income, highest-crime areas of the city. Pick your correlation.
When I was a mail carrier I saw firsthand that the snarling nasty dogs chained in the back yards were all pit bulls. If that’s because their owners are mean and want a mean dog and only know the generic reputation and don’t know the fruity kennel club names and disclaimers, then that’s how they were picked. The bad rep is why mean people buy them. So, maybe it’s just the owners believing the press, but the meanest dogs in town are pit bulls.
Revenant Threshold said:
Just to clarify my point, there are two issues.
First is that some dog breeds are easily distinguished. Golden retrievers tend to look like golden retrievers, mini poodles look a certain way, dobermans have a distinct look, german shepherds have coloration, etc. People can generally categorize dogs in these breeds. There may be some confusion between mini poodles and other small, curly haired dogs, but if a dog is mostly one of these it is fairly distinct and obvious. Now look at “pit bull type” dogs. There was a link in one of the other threads with pictures of some 20 breeds of dog and you had to ID the breed. All of those were similar, and all were often mistaken for pit bulls. So it’s relatively easy to distinguish some breeds, but other breeds are not distinct enough for the untrained to tell them apart. They’re just “dogs, mean”.
The second point was the issue of media sensationalism. If a reporter hears a story about a dog bite, he’s going to go investigate with the intent of making a dramatic story. Because his job is not only reporting, but getting viewers for his station. So he goes to the scene and interviews people and finds out it was a Jack Russel Terrier. Well, there’s not a percieved epidemic of Jack Russel Terrier attacks, so the story is probably a wash - not a lot to make dramatic and frightening. But wait! The owners also had a Pit Bull. Sure the pit bull was in another room and not involved at all, but now we have an angle. “Evil pit bull attack waiting to happen!”
Or he shows up at the scene, the people don’t know what breed the dog was, just that it was big and mean and had a square head. Must be a “pit bull type” dog. Bingo, “Pit Bulls on the rampage, you could be next!”
I suppose it arrived there of it’s own accord?
Here’s another way of looking at it: some horses kick their owners and kill them; most horses dont… but let’s label them deadly anyway!
99 times out a 100, I’ll blame the owner before I blame the dog.
‘Never Say Dice’ apparently didn’t get the memo that this website is about fighting ignorance, not perpetuating it.
No doubt there are unsavory elements of society (a minority) who gravitate towards pit bulls for all the wrong reasons and intentions, and who fail to properly socialize, nurture, and train their animals. But this human behavior is rooted in ignorance, lack of education, cultural norms, and sometimes criminal activity, none of which can be fixed by demonizing a category of dogs.
NSD has framed his limited experience with the breed with exaggerated rhetoric, assuming I guess that his bias would hold true across all towns and among all mailmen throughout the country. I suppose he also believes “all” drug dealers in town are young black kids with low hanging pants. NDS falls into the same trap so many do of buying into stereotypes, misunderstanding cause & effect, and perpetuating bigotry & discrimination without even realizing they’re doing it. I hate to break it to you, NSD, but there is a massive population of people out there whose experience with the breed is 180 degrees counter to yours.
Certainly you’re not the one to pass the memo along.
Look, I get it: there are certainly folks out there who are good pit bull owners, just as there are good golden retriever owners and good chow owners. Yes, there are people out there who are breeding hotness out of pit bulls, and these people have been doing it for sufficient generations that many bloodline are no longer hot.
But when I’m walking down the street, I don’t know whether you’re one of those people or not. I DO know that people who want mean dogs often get pit bulls, and they often get hot pit bulls. I DO know that hot pit bulls sometimes attack random people’s pets. I DO know that sometimes their “don’t attack humans” breeding doesn’t kick in for very small values of human, and they end up mauling children.
If I know you, and I know you have a pit bull, and I know you’re a responsible person, there’s no reason to fear. But if all I know about you is that you have a pit bull, it’s entirely rational to be on heightened alert.
It reminds me of a discussion we had awhile ago about concealed carry permits. After that discussion, I’m convinced that folks with CCPs present less of a danger to me than folks without CCPs, on average. However, if I see that someone is carrying a gun, I don’t know whether they’ve got a CCP or not; all I know is that on average, the person with a concealed gun presents a greater danger to me than the person without a gun.
Pit bulls are in the same category of risk.
One need not have owned a pit bull owner to comment intelligently on this subject, but it sure is easy to pick out the people who haven’t.
I’m an educated family man who happens to own an Amstaff, and I can tell that I’d have no qualms walking into a room full of pit bulls that I didn’t know. The difference between you and me is not courage … it’s an understanding of the breed, a confidence in my ability to read dog behavior, and a willingness to move beyond breed stereotypes and primal fears about being eaten alive.
You put yourself and others at risk if you only take caution with pits. Every breed, not just pit bulls, should be approached with some degree of caution … especially with children. Sure, a badly wired pit can cause major damage, but over 30 breeds of dogs have killed people and there are countless other breeds with worse bite histories than pit bulls (cocker spaniels for example).
LFD, by evidence of your multiple “I DO know” statements, you seem pretty confident in your pit bull knowledge. So I guess you also “DO know” the overwhelming majority of pits have caused no harm to no one … it’s the overwhelming rule, not the exception! So, NO, I don’t think you do “get it”. Please help me understand how you reconcile this indisputable fact with all your heightened fears.
As for your analogy of pit bulls to guns, pit bulls are not inherently weapon-like. No one disputes that certain bad people train, manipulate, and abuse the breed with harmful intentions, but to liken each unknown pit bull to a loaded weapon aimed at you is simply preposterous.
mercedes1 said:
And likening seeing a handgun on a person to being a loaded weapon aimed at you is also preposterous.
The analogy given was valid. A handgun on a person (in a holster, on the belt or under the jacket, maybe in a purse) does not show the intention of the person to pull the weapon and use it on you (threaten or shoot). It just shows the person has a handgun. Perhaps it is for defense.
Similarly, seeing a pit bull does not tell you if the pit bull is about to go nutso and rampage on you or your children, it just means there is a dog present. Just like any other breed of dog. If it is on a leash or behind a fence, you’re in better standing than if it is free roaming - regardless of the dog breed.
Irishman, if you’re saying that a person should be less fearful of a pit bull chained on leash and behind a chain-link fence, or one that is in the house behind closed doors, or one that’s dead, compared to one charging you, saliva dripping from its jaws… well, that’s pretty obvious, ain’t it?
The problem is, of course, that the time lapse between seeing the dog on the street and the dog running towards, fangs barred, can be pretty slim. (Similarly, the time lapse between the holstered gun and the gun pointed at your nose can be fairly short.)
If I see a police officer with a holstered gun, I have little fear because I have belief that she knows how/when to use it. If I see a drunk, yelling and shouting obscenities, flailing his arms and cursing all Jews, who has a holstered gun, I’m somewhat more fearful. It’s all situational, n’est-ce pas?
Left Hand of Dorkness,
This was a very well framed argument.
I have been following the discussion and feel that this most accurately follows my sentiment and those I know about pits.
(I am a chow owner)
I’m sorry, but I don’t find these gun analogies useful at all.
Handguns are inanimate weapons designed to take down people (or animals if you wish), lawfully or unlawfully, in self defense or through proactive measures. Pit bulls are dogs, overwhelmingly enjoyed as pets, the vast majority of which never cause harm to anyone. Aggressive use of pits towards humans is the rare exception, not the rule, and contrary to the breed’s natural disposition. What about that is gun-like?
Anyone who would draw such comparisons seemingly begins with the preconceived notion that pits are bad until proven otherwise. Mind you, the facts don’t support such conclusions, but regrettably our minds create their own false realities from which many victims emerge.
Does anyone not see hints of bigoted logic here? Black men who come into my store should be watched more carefully than white customers, right? Nervous looking Arabs in airports should be considered hijack threats, right? A pit bull walking in the park poses the same threat as someone carrying a loaded weapon, right? Subtle prejudices like these - where guilt is presumed without justifiable reason or perspective - is apparent on this Board. Superb article by Malcolm Gladwell on this very subject at this link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/06/060206fa_fact
C K Dexter Haven
You are correct, it is situational. I was reacting to this:
Left Hand of Dorkness said:
A reasonable statement, followed by this:
mercedes1 said:
Bolding added for emphasis. LHOD said nothing about the gun being pointed at him. He said the person has a concealed handgun that he observed. Maybe it’s in an ankle holster. Maybe it’s in a purse. The point is, the person is carrying a concealed weapon, but the permit is not stapled to the person’s sleeve, so LHOD does not know if the person has a permit or not. mercedes1 has transformed that reasonable position into a strawman claim that the person is waiving the handgun around and pointing it at people. LHOD did not claim that. That is my objection.
So yes, I made the obvious statement that a dog (whatever breed) on a leash or in a house or behind a fence is safer than a dog (whatever breed) free roaming. Similarly, a gun in a holster is not as much of a threat as a gun in someone’s hand being waved around. Duh. Obvious to everyone but mercedes1, apparently, because she doesn’t see the distinction on the latter.
mercedes1 said:
Nonsense, unless you are beginning with the preconceived notion that handguns are bad until proven otherwise.
Handguns are tools. Yes, they are inanimate, which means it takes a person to wield them. A person can have bad intent or good intent just as easily as a dog can have bad intent or good intent. (Possibly even more likely - that’s a debatable point.)
The original comparison was being made to show a level of uneasiness. Certain dogs give some people a different level of uneasiness than other dogs. Similarly, seeing someone carrying a gun gives some people a level of uneasiness. Do you know the person? Do you know why they have the gun? Do you know they are trained in its use and have good judgment? Do you know the dog and dog owner? Do you know the dog is well-behaved? That is the comparison being made.
I see nothing useful from this comparison or Irishman’s clarification of it. Is the lesson here that our uneasiness about things (pit bulls, dog owners, strangers, gun carriers, etc.) can be lessened if we “know” more about the thing? Stunning revelation! Isn’t it more probable that we aren’t going to know?
A more interesting question is how do you perceive pit bulls when you don’t know the person or dog? I believe many people on this Board perceive them (perhaps unknowingly) as inherently dangerous, even though the data doesn’t support such beliefs. You can call it “uneasiness”, but there’s a fine line between uneasiness and prejudicial thinking. Was it our “uneasiness” that lead to separate bathrooms, schools, and water fountains for blacks in the 1950’s? Is the uneasiness you feel about pit bulls truly justified (for starters, have you ever even met one? do you understand the different causes of dog aggression? is your fear of a dog attack clouding your ability to calculate the likelihood of one?)
The consequences of all this “uneasiness” aren’t simply a few spirited debates on the internet … Rather, breed specific bans are popping up all over the U.S., sheltered pit bulls are being euthanized at alarming rates, owners are being discriminated against for all sorts of things ranging from insurance to housing to pet travel. And why … not because the problem is widespread, or because these measures works, or because data supports them … but because it helps calm a few people’s “uneasiness”.
These.
I have met friendly and unfriendly dogs of various breeds. When I was a child with various door-to-door tasks (Boy Scouts collecting donations, subscription stuff, etc.) I would encounter people’s dogs. If not for some strong chains, some very aggressive dogs would have bitten me. For just walking up.
This can lead to a misunderstanding when I see someone else’s dog which may be very calm and relaxed and would never bite anyone, but looks exactly the same as the other dog which was trying to bite me. Same breed, same coloration, same ears, same eyes, SAME TEETH!
I don’t know what set the other dog off. But something did. And the same thing (or something different) might set this dog off. It could happen, and I don’t know what it might be. Someone inexperienced with dogs will have that fear that something they don’t know about will set a dog off.
They’re wondering, “Is it don’t show fear?” “Back away slowly, don’t make eye contact?” “Climb the nearest tree?” “Run faster than your friends?” “Let them bite your arm so they don’t get your throat???”
Pretend you’re someone who’s never been around a horse, but you’ve heard or seen in movies that they can kick behind them and hurt/kill someone … the first time you’re near a horse, do you walk behind it? Of course, there’s safe ways and unsafe ways to approach the back of a horse, but if you don’t know which ways are safe and which ways aren’t, the best way might be to give the back of the horse a wide berth.
Same logic might apply to dogs. A person who’s only experienced a tiny dog in their childhood might, upon meeting someone’s aggressive looking rottweiler, pit bull, or large shepherd might be intimidated upon first meeting it. Heck, someone who saw Cujo might meet a St. Bernard and freak out…
As far as fear clouding the ability to calculate one - people who seriously fear flying might prefer to drive, take a train, or take a bus rather than fly, even though someone can show statistics it’s safer. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples of this type of behavior.
I’m as confident as anyone around dogs, but I would never just walk up and try to pat a stranger’s dog on its head.
This isn’t arcane knowledge; it is common sense.
I wish some parents could instil some of it into their young children, whose reaction to seeing most dogs is “AWWW…DOGGY, DOGGY, DOGGY! I WANNA STROKE IT!”( or alternatively, “EEEK! BIG BAD SCARY DOGGY! WHY IS IT LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT, MUMMY?” ) , even when they are on a leash and at their most protective.
Look Sean … I understand your point, but you’re missing mine. The problem is not really whether some people individually take caution or feel uneasiness with pit bulls, it’s the actions they take (or don’t take) collectively to deal with those fears. Citizens are lobbying their politicians to wipe out the breed (BSL it’s called), insurance companies are denying coverage, landlords are denying housing, airlines are denying travel, shelters are euthanizing pits by the thousands. You may not be one who goes to such extremes, but if you buy into unfounded fears about pit bulls and remain silent while your neighbors harmless pit bull gets confiscated by animal control & euthanized, you contribute to the problem. Maybe pit bulls is not a cause you want to take up, fine … But when you become a victim of discrimination or government intervention based on unfounded fears, stereotyping, or political pandering, maybe you’ll understand why pit bull owners are so passionate about this issue. There are many responsible ways to deal with dangerous dogs of all breeds, but to single out a particular breed is discriminatory & wrong.