[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Your faith in the good nature of your fellow humans exceeeds mine.
[/quote]
Not really.
Okay, maybe it does, because i recognize that we’re also selected for altruism and cooperation. We’re dangerous because we’re smart, not because we’re more aggressive than other critters. Compare us to crocodiles or eagles, and we’re a bunch of freakin’ angels.
And comparing an average pit to a huge raccoon in size is missing my point.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
AA huge raccoon is around 40 pounds or so; a pit bull is around 80 pounds or so. More importantly, a pit bull stands at about the same height as a toddler; a raccoon does not.
[/QUOTE]
Not true game pits. Gamedogs, real oldline, game pits, are small, wiry, hard dogs. Those 80 pound dogs are not gamedogs, as much as your experience says otherwise.
These are photos of old line game dogs.
Game pit dogs run around 35 pounds give or take.
This is GrCh Chinaman, the grandaddy of game dogs. Jeep, another dog you see in many lines.
I don’t condone, enjoy, or support dog fighting, but I know an awful lot about it, and the dogs and people who created them. I understand why you wouldn’t trust the dogs that come through your place. They’re not game dogs, though they are clearly dog aggressive, and they are poorly bred and mistreated. I probably wouldn’t trust many of them, either.
[QUOTE=cowgirl]
From here:
(emphasis mine)
Anecdotally, my pittie is 70lbs and he’s one of the biggest ones around. An 80lb pit bull would stand out as being unusually large. Also anecdotally, the huge ones (mine included) are really, really sucky and not at all interested in fighting. In my experience (and I do live in a neighbourhood where people illegally breed pits for fighting) the small ones are more likely to be aggressive.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, and I see cowgirl’s beaten me to the punch 
(emphasis added)
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
And comparing an average pit to a huge raccoon in size is missing my point.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
It’s not missing the point at all, at all. You said pits are more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally, because they are bred to attack and kill animals the size of children. So are coonhounds. Are coonhounds more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally? If not, why not?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Not really.
Okay, maybe it does, because i recognize that we’re also selected for altruism and cooperation. We’re dangerous because we’re smart, not because we’re more aggressive than other critters. Compare us to crocodiles or eagles, and we’re a bunch of freakin’ angels.
[/QUOTE]
Too much of a hijack for me to get into intraspecific conflict, but it’s my impression that sham-fighting without real casualties characterizes the vast majority of conflict and aggression between members of the same animal species. Certainly eagles have no equivalent to world war or concentration camps.
If you’re talking about eagles vs. non-eagles, i.e., prey, your analogy would have to consider how utterly ruthless humanity has been toward its own prey animals. SO I assume you’re talking intraspecific-only. Well, IMHO humans have a not-so-good record of avoiding killing members of their own species when resolving dominance or resource conflicts.
Sailboat
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Too much of a hijack for me to get into intraspecific conflict, but it’s my impression that sham-fighting without real casualties characterizes the vast majority of conflict and aggression between members of the same animal species. Certainly eagles have no equivalent to world war or concentration camps.
[/QUOTE]
That was my impression for a long time, too, to the point that I perpetuated that myth in giving lectures to kids about why dogfighting was so terrible (i.e., I claimed that humans had to work hard to breed the nature out of dogs, so to speak, in order to get them to fight to the death). A year or two ago I found out I was wrong, much to my chagrin: there are plenty of animal species that are happy to fight to the death. And eagles may not have concentration camps, but they certainly are no fluffy bunnies in their attitudes toward one another or toward other species. Hell, fluffy bunnies are no fluffy bunnies when it comes to such manners. Red in tooth and claw.
Naja, again, I would not let a coonhound whose immediate breeding was for the sake of killing raccoons to be around a child whose profile might appear to the coonhound to be a raccoon. This isn’t a wacky position, nor am I inconsistent on it. IME, coonhounds bred to the hunt are lucky to be around any human being, much less a child; the ones that showed up to our rabies clinics were treated little better than socket wrenches by their owners.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Naja, again, I would not let a coonhound whose immediate breeding was for the sake of killing raccoons to be around a child whose profile might appear to the coonhound to be a raccoon. This isn’t a wacky position, nor am I inconsistent on it. IME, coonhounds bred to the hunt are lucky to be around any human being, much less a child; the ones that showed up to our rabies clinics were treated little better than socket wrenches by their owners.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis added)
It sounds to me like you’re doing some question-dodging, here.
Your original statement (since retracted due to lack of citation, but you’ve stated that you continue to believe it’s true) is that pit dogs (specifically) are “more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally” than any other breed of dog.
Just so that I’m clear with what you’re saying, are you now changing your position to state that all working-bred dogs designed to pursue child-sized prey are equally “more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally” than non-working bred dogs? Or do you still insist that this inability to differentiate between humans and prey is true specifically of pit-type dogs?
In the bolded line above, it sounds to me like you’re drawing a line around coonhounds due to lack of socialization, is that true? Do you believe a coonhound’s likelihood of attacking a child is a socialization issue revolving around coon hunters’ disregard, or do you truly believe that dogs, especially dogs bred for hundreds of years for a specific task can’t tell the difference between humans and other species of animals?
A CDC report lists the following breeds from a period between 1979-1996 which had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.)
Do you notice a trend there? Do you notice any types of dogs, in particular, that are not on that list? Perhaps… hunting dogs? Furthermore, the breeds on that list are, by and large, a distant memory from working-bred dogs. This suggests to me that your “theory” that pits (and working-bred hunting dogs in general) attack children (and attack children fatally) because they’re bred to fight with child-sized animals holds about as much water as a sieve.
Furthermore, according to the CDC:
If the CDC cannot determine which breeds, if any, are more likely to bite and kill, what makes you think you can?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Naja, again, I would not let a coonhound whose immediate breeding was for the sake of killing raccoons to be around a child whose profile might appear to the coonhound to be a raccoon. This isn’t a wacky position, nor am I inconsistent on it. IME, coonhounds bred to the hunt are lucky to be around any human being, much less a child; the ones that showed up to our rabies clinics were treated little better than socket wrenches by their owners.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis added)
It sounds to me like you’re doing some question-dodging, here.
Your original statement (since retracted due to lack of citation, but you’ve stated that you continue to believe it’s true) is that pit dogs (specifically) are “more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally” than any other breed of dog.
Just so that I’m clear with what you’re saying, are you now changing your position to state that all working-bred dogs designed to pursue child-sized prey are equally “more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally” than non-working bred dogs? Or do you still insist that this inability to differentiate between humans and prey is true specifically of pit-type dogs?
In the bolded line above, it sounds to me like you’re drawing a line around coonhounds due to lack of socialization, is that true? Do you believe a coonhound’s likelihood of attacking a child is a socialization issue revolving around coon hunters’ disregard, or do you truly believe that dogs, especially dogs bred for hundreds of years for a specific task can’t tell the difference between humans and other species of animals?
A CDC report lists the following breeds from a period between 1979-1996 which had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.)
Do you notice a trend there? Do you notice any types of dogs, in particular, that are not on that list? Perhaps… hunting dogs? Furthermore, the breeds on that list are, by and large, a distant memory from working-bred dogs. This suggests to me that your “theory” that pits (and working-bred hunting dogs in general) attack children (and attack children fatally) because they’re bred to fight with child-sized animals holds about as much water as a sieve.
Furthermore, according to the CDC:
If the CDC cannot determine which breeds, if any, are more likely to bite and kill, what makes you think you can?
oops
I’m sorry you think that, but I"ve answered your question three different times, and I don’t think I can make my answer any clearer than I have. I’m not question dodging; I think you’re just not making it clear what you’re looking for, or else you’re unhappy that I’ve not admitted defeat and strewn myself with ashes.
Daniel
[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Your original statement (since retracted due to lack of citation, but you’ve stated that you continue to believe it’s true) is that pit dogs (specifically) are “more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally” than any other breed of dog.
Just so that I’m clear with what you’re saying, are you now changing your position to state that all working-bred dogs designed to pursue child-sized prey are equally “more likely to attack children, and attack them fatally” than non-working bred dogs? Or do you still insist that this inability to differentiate between humans and prey is true specifically of pit-type dogs?
In the bolded line above, it sounds to me like you’re drawing a line around coonhounds due to lack of socialization, is that true? Do you believe a coonhound’s likelihood of attacking a child is a socialization issue revolving around coon hunters’ disregard, or do you truly believe that dogs, especially dogs bred for hundreds of years for a specific task can’t tell the difference between humans and other species of animals?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’m sorry you think that, but I"ve answered your question three different times, and I don’t think I can make my answer any clearer than I have. I’m not question dodging; I think you’re just not making it clear what you’re looking for, or else you’re unhappy that I’ve not admitted defeat and strewn myself with ashes.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
So what you’re saying is, you can’t or won’t won’t answer the questions?
The saddest part to me about this whole discussion is that you are admittedly suspicious of particular types of purpose-bred dogs when the statistics clearly show no particular support for your stance. You are the professional working in rescue, you are the one helping to decide which dogs live or die, get placed or get euthanized, yet your stance is one that is a direct opposite to all our evidence.
It’s not the purpose for the drive that causes attacks and bites, that’s where your reasoning is so deeply flawed. The breeding for the pit doesn’t cause them to be more likely to attack children–if anything, it makes them safer to be around children than any other breed, by far. Their tolerance for pestering, pokes, and pinches, rough handling that children put out, is greater than just about any other breed. As valley pointed out, “nanny dogs”.
The problem isn’t that they were bred to fight other dogs. The problem is that the dogs you see, coming in to your facility, are random-bred or backyard bred by ignorant assholes who get off on abusing and neglecting animals. It’s not the pit heritage, it’s the bad breeding, neglect, and abuse that makes them a potential risk–and that’s not a function of the breed; the same is true, and far more true, I would argue, for the rotties, shepherd mixes, akitas, and so on that come through your hands, because they don’t have a major component to their breeding history being tolerance of rough handling by people under major stress and physical pain. Pit dogs do.
The same is true, by extension, for the other half of my point, dogs bred to hunt game animals. You insist that their breeding for the pursuit of prey makes them more likely to attack a prey-sized human, but the statistics show that the types of dogs most likely to be involved in severe attacks are not hunting breeds at all–they’re primarily guardian breeds, with pit dogs and two Nordic breeds thrown in. Some of this, probably most of it, is sheer numbers. The CDC report covered the time frame between late seventies and late nineties, a span that saw the meteoric rise in popularity of several different large, powerful guardian breeds: rotties, GSDs, and dobies, all of which are on the fatal attack list. Those breeds were created and developed to attack people when the need called. That poorly-bred and mishandled guardian breeds occasionally do what their history created them to do surprises me not one bit. That we also see a couple nordic breeds on the list, fiercely independent dogs with a need for massive amounts of exercise (statistically overwhelmingly likely to have been stuck in a yard or on a chain when involved in severe attacks) also doesn’t surprise me.
Pit dogs were once the heroes of the canine world. After the fall of the GSD, Dobie, and Rottie as the demonized breed du jour, pits became the next target, and their popularity with the sleezebag set brings them to where those other breeds were in recent decades.
I’ll make my point one last time. It’s not a particular characteristic of the breed that makes the dogs you see untrustworthy. It’s bad breeding, abuse and neglect.
I don’t think there’s much else for me to say, because you don’t seem interested in actually considering the discussion or evaluating your stance on the topic, preferring to believe something you’ve already stated yourself the statistics do not support.
I’ll leave you with one last thought–something I’m sure you’re quite aware of.
The American Temperament Test Society breed statistics as of December 2006 show an 84.1% passing rate for the American Pit bull Terrier, ** 83.9%** for the American Staffordshire Terrier and a 85.2% passing rate for the Staffordshire Bull terrier, as compared to an 81.5% average pass rate for all dog breeds.
I’m sorry you believe what you do, I really am.
[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
So what you’re saying is, you can’t or won’t won’t answer the questions?
[/QUOTE]
Wow, no wonder you don’t understand my answer. That’s frankly an offensive reading of what I said, and unless you can show a more civil style, you can’t expect further response from me.
(Edit: the remainder of your post shows that you’re fundamentally misunderstanding my position. If you’d like further discussion, you’ll need to demonstrate that you’ve reread my posts and caught the distinction I’ve made multiple times to clarify that misunderstanding.)
Daniel
No, I get that you said you differentiate between “game bred” dogs and other pit type dogs. I also get that you demonstrated that you can’t tell the difference, at least visually speaking.
The remainder of my post goes on to outline in proven, documented statistics why your position in regards to game bred dogs, if indeed you really know what those are, is fundamentally flawed.
Look, I don’t disagree with you that there are unstable pit dogs out there. There are unstable dogs of any and all breeds. Where I disagree with you, and am asking you to reconsider, is that it’s a function of the breed. I think it’s environmental with genetic components, and have the same reservations about whacky pit dogs as I do whacky rotties or chows or shepherd dogs.
But I do think there are proportionally fewer whacky pit dogs than a couple other breeds, though they may be greater in sheer volume 
[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Look, I don’t disagree with you that there are unstable pit dogs out there. There are unstable dogs of any and all breeds. Where I disagree with you, and am asking you to reconsider, is that it’s a function of the breed.
[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that the instability of a particular unstable dog will bear no relationship to the behavioral characteristics for which that dog was bred? If that’s your suggestion, then you do disagree with me. If it’s not, I’m not sure where the point of disagreement is.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Are you suggesting that the instability of a particular unstable dog will bear no relationship to the behavioral characteristics for which that dog was bred? If that’s your suggestion, then you do disagree with me. If it’s not, I’m not sure where the point of disagreement is.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
That pit dogs’ history of being bred for dog fighting makes them inherently dangerous to people and particularly children. There’s a belief coming through your words that dog aggression equals propensity for human aggression. That’s very simply not true.
What is true is that in selecting for extreme dog aggression, and the trait of continuing on despite all signs of imminent defeat, they were also culled hard for showing any remote signs of human aggression. In a pit fight, the handlers have to be able to reach into the ball of snarling canine and lift out their opponent’s dog. The dogs allow themselves to be broken from a fight, by hand and breakstick, by a stranger. Try doing that with a shepherd mix and you’ll get twenty slashes up and down your arms.
Your maniac dog that broke out of the kennel and left bloody trails at all the kennels where she tried to fence-fight, was trying to attack other dogs. I’d agree she’s too extreme a case to release to the general public for handling and that, in the absence of an available expert-handling home to place her into, she should be euthanized. Where you and I disagree is that she’s just as likely to turn that aggression on to children.
I do certainly agree that the instability of a particular unstable dog is, at least in part, related to the behavioral characteristics for which that dog was bred. I am particularly cautious around unfamiliar dogs bred for human protection–cattle drovers, property guardians, flock guardians, and personal protection breeds. I have major respect and admiration for these dogs, and as a whole I like the group very much and personally prefer handling these types of dogs to more gregarious breeds. However, I’m far more cavalier handling an unfamiliar pit dog, because their breeding history specifically selects for amiability towards humans. I have found that to be consistently true for the breed in my personal experience. Sure, you come across a few whacky pits, but that’s what being locked in a closet, beaten, and fed crank will do to you. I wonder if you think a lab locked in a closet, beaten, and fed crank would come out peachy?
Completely anecdotally, I worked for a long time in a facility that processed “random source dogs”–every one of hundreds of dogs that came through our facility were dogs deemed unfit for adoption by several surrounding county humane societies. The vast majority of these dogs were pits and pit mixes. We got some rotties, shepherds, huskies, chows, a few really random mutts, but a very significant percentage were pit dogs. In all the time I was there, I handled a very small handful of pit dogs that I treated with real caution in response to their body language. Many of them were very dog-aggressive, and that trait was assumed as a matter of course, though most never showed any reactivity at all. However, it was only a very few that exhibited any signs of human aggression, and these dogs were not generally the ones who fence-fought and had to be led through the kennel on a come-along to keep them from engaging the other dogs.
Comparatively speaking, the other breeds we got were almost exclusively likely to have come to us having been deemed unfit for adoption due to human aggression–a bite history, owner-surrendered for suspicious behavior, failing temperament testing, that kind of thing. This is, of course, not anything like a random pool of dogs, but it does tell me that a lot of perfectly nice pit dogs are labeled unadaptable due to aggression issues when their actual behavior doesn’t in any way reflect that label, even when handled by strangers in the stress of a large kennel setting. They were most often right about the other dogs, though not always, and it’s not entirely fair to judge a dog’s real personality under that kind of stress.
[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
That pit dogs’ history of being bred for dog fighting makes them inherently dangerous to people and particularly children. There’s a belief coming through your words that dog aggression equals propensity for human aggression. That’s very simply not true.
[/QUOTE]
That is not my belief. I agree that pits tend not to be dangerous toward adults. I have known this is true since spring of 2000, when I worked with this dogfighting case and began researching them. My belief, which I have admitted I have been unable to substantiate and so remains a suspicion, is that pits are disproportionately dangerous toward children when compared to many other breeds. I suspect that other dogs whose breeding has (note that phrasing, distinguishing from “breeds who have”) the purpose of causing them to attack small animals would also be disproportionately dangerous toward children of an approximately equal size.
Edit: as an analogy, I believe that dogs whose breeding has the purpose of causing them to herd livestock are probably disproportionately represented among dogs killed while chasing cars.
Do you agree that, in theory, it is possible for a dog to be aggressive toward adults but not toward children? Do you agree that, in theory, the opposite is also possible? Do you have statistics to show that dogs who have been bred toward the pit are proportionately represented (or underrepresented, either way) among attacks against children?
It’s coming across to me as though you’re used to encountering people who support breed-bans and other broad-brush measures, and you’re lumping me in with that group. That’s not what I’m saying, not at all.
Daniel
Also, I have to give a nod of acknowledgment to valley that the stuff about being locked in closets and fed gunpowder very likely is a result of the media hype. Old school dog fighters, the ones who created and developed the breed, don’t do that kind of thing, even today.
I’ve been hesitant to comment on this because I absolutely do** not** want to give the wrong impression about who I am or what I believe… but before all the media hype about pits, the people who were fighting dogs considered themselves sportsmen, dogmen, breeding and rolling dogs for a sport. It’s a bloodsport, to be sure, and I agree that it’s ethically wrong to pit animals against each other for entertainment, but they weren’t doing it out of glee from torturing the dogs. They didn’t lock their dogs in closets and feed them gunpowder, because they were breeding gladiators, athletes, not psychotics.
I know that that sort of thing does go on today, as your experience will attest. But the dogs you’re seeing, seventy pound pits, are cross-bred dogs and not of true game breeding. I’m not sure I’m being particularly articulate about my point. I’m trying to draw the same distinction you are–there are some unstable pit dogs–but I’m trying to make you understand that it’s not the pit breeding, the fighting history that causes the instability, it’s the thug-mentality breeding; the very same thug mentality that bred and reared so many unstable GSDs in the late seventies, dobermans in the eighties, and rottweliers in the nineties.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
That is not my belief. I agree that pits tend not to be dangerous toward adults. I have known this is true since spring of 2000, when I worked with this dogfighting case and began researching them. My belief, which I have admitted I have been unable to substantiate and so remains a suspicion, is that pits are disproportionately dangerous toward children when compared to many other breeds. I suspect that other dogs whose breeding has (note that phrasing, distinguishing from “breeds who have”) the purpose of causing them to attack small animals would also be disproportionately dangerous toward children of an approximately equal size.
[/quote]
Except that the statistics do not support this assertion, at all. The CDC report lists all breeds of dogs in a span of seventeen years who have been involved in the death of one or more human beings, and small-game hunting dogs appear a total of three times on the list,“hound-type” dogs twice and coonhounds once. That means there were a grand total of three small-game hunting dogs in seventeen years involved in fatalities. Three dogs out of a group (“other dogs whose breeding has the purpose of causing them to attack small animals”) that includes all cur types, scent hounds, sight hounds, and pig dogs. There were, in the same span, an equal number of collies–a herding breed with little recent working history–on the list. Three.
Even if you lump in all pit-type dogs into your group (“dogs whose breeding has the purpose of causing them to attack small animals”), there are a greater number of guardian-breed dogs on the fatality list, 79 vs a minimum of 95 with an extremely strict definition of “guardian” breeds that excludes breeds originally created for a different purpose and used far more recently for guardianship. I think you and I might both agree that there are far more pit-type dogs on the ground in the country then, say, dobermans or mastiffs, so while the CDC agrees that we don’t have an accurate census of dogs by breed in this country and thus can’t make any real assertions regarding a breed’s likelihood to attack or kill, I’m pretty sure the statistics don’t support your suspicion.
No, I don’t. I mean, it’s possible, in the same way that it’s possible for a dog to be aggressive towards an adult wearing a sombrero or a beard and not be aggressive towards people bare-headed and un-bearded, but I have never in theory or practice come across breeds or types of dogs that are generally friendly to children and not adults.
Only if you are considering aggression towards children in the context of dominance problems, where dominant type dogs challenge children for place in the pack. I agree that there are breeds, types, and individual dogs that may have this tendency. I disagree, and disagree vehemently, that hunting dogs are generally at risk of viewing children as prey, and would go on to assert that aggression towards children is most often related to dominance challenges, or territorial issues, and not prey-drive. I base this assertion on the following facts:
[QUOTE=Karen Delise and the National Canine Research Council report]
93% of the dogs involved in fatal attacks were unaltered (not spayed or neutered)
Statistically, chained and penned dogs pose a greater danger than free roaming dogs.
-a substantial number of fatal dog attacks involved dogs that were either directly encouraged or indirectly permitted to behave aggressively in their function as “guard or status” dogs.
[/quote]
No, but you’re the one insisting the validity of this “suspicion,” not me.
It’s true I’ve participated in breed-ban arguments, but I fully recognize you’re not coming from that stance. I still disagree with your conclusions regarding pit dogs and small-game-hunting dogs and the reasons pit dogs are sometimes involved in attacks towards children.
One other point I want to make about my last post, and the media hype and ensuing popularity of pit-type dogs among the types of people that view dogs as weapons or aggressive status symbols: In the decade between 1966-1975, less than 2% of all dogs involved in fatal attacks in the United States were of the breeds which today are targeted so frequently as the solution to canine aggression, (Pit Bull or Rottweiler). That also comes from the NCRC reports.
[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Even if you lump in all pit-type dogs into your group (“dogs whose breeding has the purpose of causing them to attack small animals”), there are a greater number of guardian-breed dogs on the fatality list, 79 vs a minimum of 95
[/QUOTE]
One other thing, I took the liberty of assuming you also wanted to specifically exclude bird dogs in the list of prey-oriented breeds, Labradors, Goldens, chessies and the like since you brought up Goldens as an example of a safe breed, so I didn’t include the fatalities involving them in the count of “hunting” breeds.
Though there are, interestingly, more bird dogs involved in fatilities than breeds bred for the pursuit and kill of ground prey ;).
