Mercedes1 I did not once say that it’s anywhere close to correct for people to go to the extremes they are. My post merely meant to explain which of your listed suggestions might actually be the case to describe why people have fear reactions, and to try to expound upon it.
Many people react much more strongly to their fears than is appropriate for situations. When responding to fear, it’s hard to know what is appropriate and what is not. Some people don’t take their fears seriously enough, other people take them way, way too far, as appears to be the case with the folks you describe.
mercedes1, it is not my intent to justify anything. I don’t agree with the response you point out, actions taken against the breed.
My issue was your prejudicial attack on gun owners. You are berating people for reacting prejudicially against pit bulls, but blind to your own bias against guns. Seriously, you equated seeing someone carrying a concealed handgun with waving that handgun around. If you want to be taken seriously, start with your own attitudes.
I admit using poor phrasing on the handgun scenario, but where did you come up with “prejudicial attack on gun owners”? … I believe in the 2nd amendment and lawful gun ownership.
The point I was (and still am) trying to make is that this tired gun analogy is not really helpful in the larger discussion of whether pit bulls are dangerous. Several posts seemed fascinated by this gun analogy, to which I disagreed and suggested that its use smacked of prejudicial thinking towards pit bulls (perhaps unknowingly).
I apologize if my tone is confrontational, but as pit bull owners, we face a constant uphill battle against stereotypes and ignorance which have had devastating consequences on our lives. My hope was that this Board might engage in some constructive discussion about this, but instead we seem focused on weak analogies and word dissection.
Bolding added. Does that not strike you as an unfair depiction of what LHOD said? It sure does to me.
Follow that with
The only way that comparing a dog to a gun assumes that dogs are bad is if it also assumes guns are bad. If a person assumes that guns are a tool, and that they can be wielded by a conscious being in a good manner or a bad manner, then it is fair to compare them to a dog, which is a conscious being that can have a good manner or a bad manner.
Like all analogies, the devil is in the details. In broad strokes, the analogy has some merit, but it is not an identical case, so objectors can always find things that aren’t the same and say those things break the analogy. The point of an analogy is to try to convey one element of meaning, not create an identical situation. It is fair to examine if the analogy is valid and how it holds up and when it does not. But reasonable discourse is to try to understand the person’s reason for using the analogy and the point they are trying to convey rather than get hung up on side issues.
I’m all for constructive discussion. I don’t understand how the reaction to gun owners is constructive.
LHOD gave an example of a situation where knowledge (and common sense) says that with responsible owners, a certain situation should be less dangerous than a similar situation with irresponsible owners. However, on the fly and in the spur of the moment, he has no way to judge if the owner is responsible, and so the possibility of the owner being irresponsible puts him on edge because an irresponsible owner puts him a greater risk.
You call this stereotyping. Well, perhaps it is. What we both can agree on, I think, is finding a way to reduce the risk in a reasonable manner that does not prejudicially single out a breed of dogs, but rather focuses on the elements the generate the danger.
I will avoid another gun ownership analogy since those bug you.
Inaccurate depiction? Yes. Prejudicial attack on gun owners? No, not even close. Left Hand Dorkness said:
To Irishman:
Again, it was wrong of me to misquote LHD’s “concealed gun” wording with “loaded weapon aimed at you” … But I won’t retract my point entirely because LHD’s own words state he is associating a concealed gun with “greater danger” to him. Isn’t it natural for us to assume the reason LHD senses danger from a concealed weapon is because that weapon can go from concealed to “loaded & aimed at him” in a split second. Why else fear it?
So, no, I don’t believe LHD’s statement that it is “entirely rational to be on heightened alert” … be it around people with pit bulls or concealed guns. In fact, it’s mostly irrational because the odds of actually being victimized are infinitesimally small … This sort of irrational rationalization is prevalent in the pit bull debate and one of the hardest behaviors to change (but oh so liberating to those of us who get it).
I find it heartbreaking that the ones so often entrusted with choosing life and death for the dogs that move through shelters are basing their decisions on such grossly unfounded logic.
For the most part, anything I’d say has already been said, I just want to add two relevant data points:
One, that no one can effectively identify a “pit bull” with visual identification. With advances in DNA testing of mixed-breed dogs, we are discovering that phenotype of mixed-breed dogs has little to do with breed heritage. As was posted earlier, studies purporting to report on dog bite trends by breed were deeply flawed in more-or-less every fundamental way.
Secondly, there is a very real mediabias in “pit bull attack” reporting. Any stocky, broad-headed and short-coated dog is equally likely to be slapped with the “pit bull” label in the first hysterical, nationally-broadcast headlines, and retractions are non-existent. Attacks involving non-pit dogs are almost never reported anywhere beyond local media, and are almost never front-page news. You only think pit dogs are more dangerous because you’ve been taught the same tired urban legend that recycles every ten years or so, insert mythically terrifying breed-of-the-moment here.
I’m sure you do lots of good work for lots of dogs, but it is a deep and crying shame to imagine how many stocky, short-coated and broad-headed shelter dogs have met disproportionately lethal fates at the hands of misguided shelter workers who buy heart and soul into the “dangerous breed du jour” myth. Pit-type dogs are no more devil-dogs than rotties or dobies or GSDs before them, or than bloodhounds were a hundred years ago. That you believe them to be so, and that you handle and place them differently because of it truly is heartbreaking.
One, that no one can effectively identify a “pit bull” with visual identification. With advances in DNA testing of mixed-breed dogs, we are discovering that phenotype of mixed-breed dogs has little to do with breed heritage. As was posted earlier, studies purporting to report on dog bite trends by breed were deeply flawed in more-or-less every fundamental way.
[COLOR=“Blue”]******Bullshit!Tell me why i cant identify a pitbull?Maybe it’s not a purebread with papers,what other kind of dogs look as ugly as those mongoloids of the dogworld?A boxer?NOPE I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE,A ROTT?NOPE SAME THING,WHAT UR SAYING IS ABSURD[/COLOR].**Secondly, there is a very real media bias in “pit bull attack” reporting. Any stocky, broad-headed and short-coated dog is equally likely to be slapped with the “pit bull” label in the first hysterical, nationally-broadcast headlines, and retractions are non-existent. Attacks involving non-pit dogs are almost never reported anywhere beyond local media, and are almost never front-page news. You only think pit dogs are more dangerous because you’ve been taught the same tired urban legend that recycles every ten years or so, insert mythically terrifying breed-of-the-moment here
[B][COLOR=“Blue”]First of all most other breeds “dont attack” they simply bite a person,whereas those dumbass inbred ,bred to kill pits attack.And dont let go And they are more dangerous.Why in the world would you defend what thosedogs do and anyone with an open mind knows im right.What your saying is that sheepdogs arent anymore likely to herd sheep than any other breed.A lab isnt anymore likely to fetch or like water than any other breed.Or a springer spaniel isnt anymore likely to be a good hunting dog than any other,those are all myths?Furthermore nobody can identify a lab by sight huh?Gimme a break …lol “media bias”…lol…you have “pitbull bias”… buddy[/COLOR]**I’m sure you do lots of good work for lots of dogs, but it is a deep and crying shame to imagine how many stocky, short-coated and broad-headed shelter dogs have met disproportionately lethal fates at the hands of misguided shelter workers who buy heart and soul into the “dangerous breed du jour” myth
NOT ENOUGH OF THEM HAVE MET A LETHAL FATE ,USELESS DOG OF INSECURE INDIVIDUALS…Don’t get me wrong i am an animal lover,it’s not the dogs fault it was born a pit and with those instincts and jaws they have.Believe me if there was another breed as mean and had as much killer instinct as them the mike vicks of the world would choose to fight that breed!WAKE UP!
V. Voith, E. Ingram, K Mitsouras, et al, "Comparison of Adoption Agency Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, July 2009.
The traits you identify as “pit bull” traits are those carried by many large breeds of dogs. A rottie mix, a dane mix, an american bulldog mix, a lab mix may all carry the same traits of “stocky body, blunt muzzle, short coat” and so on. Arguing that any mixed-breed dog that exhibits these traits is “evil” is just as patently absurd as saying any human with dark skin, a broad nose, and densely-textured hair is evil. It’s not physical appearance that makes bad dogs or bad people. The studies show that a large number of dogs that exhibit these physical traits have only remote pit-dog ancestry. Are you going to argue a “one drop” rule for pit dogs next?
Would you like to show me some proof of this? Hint: you can’t, because it’s simply not true. Shouting a lie in hysterical colored bold font doesn’t make it any less a hysterical lie.
Also not true.
APBTs test more reliably than Australian Shepherds, Dauchshunds, Dalmations, Foxhounds, Giant Schnauzers, several varieties of mastiffs, Rottweilers, Chihuahuas, Bichon Frises, and Golden fucking Retrievers, just to name a few. They rate several percentage points higher than the average for all breeds. Staffordshire Bull Terriers rank even higher at >88% passing rates.
Because “what those dogs do” is… act like good dogs. And I like good dogs.
No… anyone with an irrational hatred of stocky, short-coated dogs “knows” you’re right.
No, those are selected traits, and even those only carry so far down the line. A dog with one great-great-grandparent who was a shepherd is no more likely to herd sheep than my hog hunting dog. “Murdering people” is not a trait that was selected for in the breeding of pit dogs. If you want to talk about pit dogs being potentially more likely to fight with other dogs, then sure, but even that only carries so far. Even very “hot” pits can be taught appropriate dog-dog communication and interaction. It turns out that the dog-dog communications (body language) that de-escalate fights are behaviors that some pit dogs aren’t “taught” as babies… but that’s purely an issue with teachable behavior, not not in-born psychosis as people like **LHOD **would have you believe.
In any case, dog aggression is not the same as human aggression, any more than chasing and killing foxes is the same as chasing and killing people, to a foxhound.
Try it. [PDF]
One of those dogs has significant Labrador Retriever in its breeding history. I don’t really think you’ll even look, but hey, givin’ it the ol’ college try
“Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are…” :rolleyes:
There are many different “pit fighting” breeds found across the world. The APBT was certainly not the first dog bred for pit fighting, and won’t be the last. Scumbags who like to pit dog against dog don’t restrict themselves to APBTs, they use what wins and what they have access to.
As someone upthread posted, remember all the hysteria and reports of pit bill maulings from the 50’s up through the 80’s during the time period when they were “America’s dog”? Oh, that’s right, you don’t, because the media frenzy on pit bulls didn’t happen until 1987 (thanks a lot, HSUS).
Your hatred for these dogs is irrational, every bit as much as the hatred for dobies, rotties, GSDs, and bloodhounds was in their day.
I’m surprised no one else called you out on this (or maybe they did and I missed it in the gun analogy squabble), but allow me to be the first to inquire about your sources for this non-existent statistic?
As Sailboat already pointed out:
We don’t have any useful statistics on bite rates by breed… and we can’t even visually identify them in the first place. I’d sure like to know where you get your “facts” from; you seem to like this one a lot. You use it every time the “pit bull debate” crops up on these boards, but I can’t remember ever having seen a cite for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness
Pit bull fatal attacks disproportionately affect children.
Yea it’s just another case of “mistakin identity”…Sounds like your grasping at straws HOMEBOY!!
Heres one more **From 1979 through 1994, attacks by dogs resulted in 279 deaths of humans in the United States. (Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988. JAMA 1989;262:1489-92; Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996; 97:891-5.) In the latter study, which covered six years, the researchers made these findings:
There were 109 bite-related fatalities. 57% of the deaths were in children under 10 years of age.
81% of the attacks involved an unrestrained dog.
22% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog OFF the owner’s property.
59% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog ON the owner’s property.
18% of the deaths involved a restrained dog ON the owner’s property.
10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants.
The most commonly reported dog breeds involved were pit bulls (24 deaths), followed by Rottweilers (16 deaths), and German shepherds (10 deaths).
Now what?
Are you paying any attention whatsoever?
Your first statistic simply shows *fatal dog attacks *to disproportionately affect children. It makes no mention of breed or type.
Your second set of statistics are useless because, as the CDC points out, no one could have accurately identified those dogs as “pit bulls” in the first place… not to mention the fact that we have no idea what proportion those alleged “pit bulls” make up of the general “pit bull” population, even if they were pit bulls… which they in all likelihood weren’t. According to, you know, the CDC.
The National Canine Research Council seems to consist almost entirely of Karen Delise, who has written two pro-pitbull books. I can’t find out anything about what this group does outside of their own website and press releases, and there is precious little about the actual makeup, history and funding of the group available anywhere, as far as I can see.
I don’t know yet. Instead of releasing a ton of attack press releases every time the word “pitbull” appears in the news, I’m going to look at the research itself, taking into account who did it and what their motives might be.
Are you paying any attention whatsoever?
…the scientists at the CDC say that you cannot compile such a report scientifically. ALL dog bite statistics are suspect, and the ones purporting to show one breed bites more than another have been specifically repudiated by the scientists at the CDC.*
Yea well i’m not buying it.I can identify a pitbull .I dont care if its a staffordshire,american or a mongolian pit.I’ve yet to see a german shepherd,poodle,doberman,or black lab get confused with being a pitbull.So i say that stories a crock of shit.[Last year in Ogden, 39 percent of the dogs involved in bites were Pit Bulls or Pit mixes. Currently, only 8 percent of the dogs licensed in Ogden are Pit Bulls, but 20 percent of the animals a handled at the Ogden shelter are Pit Bulls. In an effort to prevent bites and injuries, city administration is proposing an ordinance that will address Pit Bulls specifically, with a preventative approach.8% make up 39% of bites.hmmm…oh yeah its probably just "mistakin identity"again!It was probably the poodles framing the pits …lolol
Statistics show that Pit Bulls as a breed have been bred, in some cases, trained to be aggressive! Pit bulls are responsible for a disproportionate share of attacks and injuries to people and pets. In one study sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 32 percent of dog related killings of humans in the United States are caused by Pit Bulls, yet Pit Bulls constitute only 2 percent of the total dog population, and 70 percent of those mauling deaths were of children under 10 years.
THERE’S YOUR BELOVED CDC SAYING 32%OF KILLINGS BEING CAUSED BY 2% OF POPULATION…WHATEVER THAT 2%BREED TURNS OUT TO BE!LOLOLWE NEED TO FIND OUT THAT MYSTERIOUS BREED OF UNIDENTIFIABLE DOGS!
Meanwhile our friends in Seattle have this to saySeattle Pit Bull Statistics: Bites, Population, Euthanization DogsBite.org - By requesting records at the Seattle Animal Shelter and referencing published data by other sources, we’ve combined relevant Seattle pit bull statistics. What stands out the most is that pit bulls make up a small percent of the dog population, a high number of bites and an alarming percent of dogs being euthanized (nearly half).
Pit Bull Bites & Menacing Acts
This analysis is based on a five year period (2003-2008)
Pit bulls accounted for 3.4% of the registered dogs and 25% of all dog bites
Labradors, the most popular Seattle breed, accounted for 17% of the registered dogs and 12% of dog bites
Pit bulls accounted for 37% of menacing acts versus 11% Labradors
Pit bull dogs were defined as the American pit bull terrier, pit bull, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and bull terrier for the purposes of this analysis. Data source: Seattle Animal Shelter
Pit Bull Population
The Seattle PI reported an analysis of Seattle’s pit bull population.
2003: 2.97%
2004: 3.21%
2005: 3.27%
2006: 3.28%
2007: 3.11%
Classified Ad Search
On September 15, 2008, DogsBite.org searched under 6 different names to see how popular pit bulls are in the Seattle area. Of 432 dogs for sale in the combined classified ads for the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI, pit bull type dogs yielded 5, which is 1% of dogs.
Search criteria: American Pit Bull Terrier 0; Pit Bull 2; Pitbull 1; American Bulldog 2; Staffordshire Terrier 0; Bull Terrier 0
Other dog breeds yielded: Yorkies 38 (9%), Lab 24 (6%), Shepherd 22 (5%), Dachshund 20 (5%), Golden Retriever 15 (3%).
Uhh… okay… so… I guess if you have magic DNA perception capabilities, you might want to give someone at the CDC or maybe James Randi a heads-up, because no one else in the world has your magic powers. The JRF has a million bucks socked away for you, if you wanna take a little time to go claim it.
For anyone still following along who wants to see if they’re as magically perceptive as our brilliant friend here, here are some photos of mixed-breed dogs with their DNA results: find the pit bull mix and the lab mix. [both PDFs]
Here’s a sampling of dog breeds which are commonly mistaken for pit-type dogs or pit mixes. Can you spot the American Pit Bull Terrier? No? Then what makes you think any random dog bite victim can?
(Followed by a bunch of already debunked nonsense)
Maybe repetition is the key? Fourth time’s a charm?
