Is their propensity for violent attacks inbred?
PLEASE don’t move this to IMHO.
I need a definite answer.
Thanks
Q
Non-factual contribution - some of them have certainly been selectively bred for aggressive behaviour in the past. I would say that fairly confidently. Lemme see if I can rustle up a cite.
You mean ‘bred in’.
‘Inbred’ refers to mating of closely related animals, for example father-daughter or brother-sister mating. This tends to concentrate the traits of that specific bloodline, thus both good & bad traits can become more pronounced in the puppies.
In horse breeding, you will find those who believe cross-generation breeding (father-daughter or mother-son) is OK, but intra-generation (brother-sister) is bad. They call the former linebreeding, and the latter inbreeding. Others just use the term linebred when they like the resulting offspring, and inbred when they don’t like it.
From here:
Bolding mine. So officially they are no longer bred to fight, however they are still a popular choice amongst illegal dog fighters, and are presumably bred for it.
Whether that means they have a “propensity for violent attacks”, I would suggest yes. However that’s for you to interpret, or someone else to cite 
Thanks, you guys. I’m just trying to get past the attacks and still keep my love for animals intact, ya know?
As I said elsewhere, I have a love (and respect!) for all animals, dangerous or not, but my Og! They’re mauling kids!
Help me understand this, okay?
And I understand it’s not the dog, okay? I have petted a pit! Been one on one with them, up close.
But who’s to know when the dog’s gonna revert to his/her violent nature?
Okay, let me put in the following terms:
You have a pit. You need to move and you have a prospective “parent” for him.
Your adoptive parent asks, “Can you guarantee me that he won’t suddenly turn violent and attack my 3 year old?”
Of course the neighbor is going to say “No, I cannot guarantee you that”, and he may even add the fact that any dog is likely to attack the child.
Really?
Can you give me the figures, please, because if you can, and if the figures even out, I’ll take your dog.
Okay, so it’s been “bred in”, sorry for the mistake! 
But at what point do we say “poor dog” (and they ARE!) or “it’s not worth my 3 year old’s life to adopt this dog?”
Remember this about what I posted, if nothing else: I LOVE the 4-footed ones!
I just have no idea “where” to put these feelings!
Thank you for your opinions, pro or con! This is where I come to get answers from the best minds in the world!
Q
The biggest problem with pitbulls isn’t that they’re genetically pre-disposed to violence, but that most of them are raised by assholes who train them to violence.
I found some more specific statistics here:
Bolding mine. I would think that the temperament of any dog is hugely dependant on its environment, how it was raised etc… I’ve seen a golden lab sink his teeth into my father’s chin (to be fair, Dad was trying to give him a shave). But consider this – if a Boston Terrier gets the shits for your 5 year old, will it be able to get its jaws around her neck? How about a pit bull?
I’ve played with some lovely and caring pit bulls, and Rotweilers. If you think your conscious could do without a dog attack on it, might want to err on the side of caution.
Quasi, think of it this way…
You can think “poor dog” and “It’s not worth my 3-year-old’s life to adopt this dog” at the same time. A home with a kid is not the best place for an “aggressive breed” dog that has already experienced a poor upbringing. But is that the only choice for the placement of this dog? No. There are plenty of good people who don’t have kids who can love and properly care for a pitbull.
From what I’ve learned from pitbull enthusiasts, you can raise a pit to be a wonderful dog that can be a part of a family with children. Those same people would probably agree that an asshole owner - whether it be someone training a dog to be aggressive or simply neglecting it - can result in a pit that can’t be trusted with kids. Still, “poor dog.”
I’m not going to write a huge post on this because the moderation on this particular subject is terrible and also people will believe what they want to believe no matter how many holes in their logic.
The Clifton report is fatally flawed and stems from the same yellow journalism that has fueled much of the witch hunt surrounding these dogs.
Pit Bulls are often wrongly identified as the aggressor in an attack because…well because people are stupid.
Pit Bulls were bred for dog fighting. This means that they can be dog aggressive. There is no correlation between dog agression and people aggession.
While Pit Bulls were bred for dog fighting, they were also bred specifically to be non-aggressive towards humans. IMHO, a well-socialized pit bull is a much safer dog to have than every other breed of dog.
Children should never be left unsupervised around ANY dog. The majority of dog bites occur when children and dogs are left alone. It can be a recipe for disaster no matter how safe you think the dog is.
All dogs should be thoroughly trained and socialized. You get out of a dog exactly how much you put into it.
I’m sure there will soon be a bunch of people who will rush in to claim that pit bulls often exsanguinate their victims and then use the blood in a sacrificial ritual to Satan…so have fun with that.
It’s time for another pit bull thread already?
Guarantee? I can’t guarantee that you won’t suddenly turn violent and attack a 3 year old child.
They’re certainly very physical capable dogs - in other words if one were to turn violent, they’re much more capable of damage than many other breeds. Whether or not a specific dog is likley to turn violent depends a lot on (a) the individual dog itself and (b) how it has been raised. Much like a human, really.
The question was answered within the first three posts, so I’ll just add some advice.
Most dog owners are bad pet-parents. Dogs aren’t things, which you can pick up and play with when the mood suits you, or ignore on a shelf somewhere when you have better things to do. Having pets is WORK, in the same way having children is. If you screw up with a pit bull, it can do a lot of damage. If you screw up with a mini poodle (a breed particularly known for having a bad temper), it won’t do too much damage. If you’re not absolutely certain of your ability to dominate and train a dog, don’t get a strong, dominant dog.
Humans have not been selectively bred for behavioral and temperamental traits.
Hey, Quasi: What I don’t think you realized is that you’ve kinda stepped into a really big debate. What you are taking as fact has not been satisfactorily determined.
IOW, many people question whether pit bulls really are more likely to attack.
My personal opinion would only be expressible in another thread.
Pit bulls were bred to be aggressive to other dogs and gentle with people.
This is pretty much my feeling on it. Even if they HADN’T been bred for generations for fighting, look at those jaws. If they bite, they do a LOT more damage than other proportionately sized breeds. The jaws do NOT lock, but they DO have great jaw strength and they thrash their head back and forth; this does a HUGE amount of damage.
I know there are good pits out there; I have personally known many. But I have also known the other side of the coin, the pits that are dog aggressive, the pits that are dominant. It is not a breed I would feel comfortable owning, especially since I am a multiple dog house. I am more cautious with pits around other dogs than people in most cases.
But since my dogs *ARE *my kids, take that for what it’s worth. 
There are many papers written looking at dog bite statistics. Many look specifically at fatalities. One problem in interpreting the data is that the number of dogs present in the country of a given breed is typically not known. For example, assume 5 fatalities due to Bred A and 10 fatalities due to Breed B. Breed A is safer, right? But add in the information that there are 5 Breed As in existence and there are 10,000 Breed Bs and it complicates things.
Consider also that mix breed dogs that subjectively look “pit bull like” are often called pit bulls.
Here is one paper looking at stats. It is a pdf file. Make of it what you will.
OK. For starters, the Merrit Clifton report has been debunked. I know you can find it online, but that doesn’t make it fact any more than finding Stormfront.org it makes racist hate claims fact.
Secondly, dogsbite and dogbitelaw are hate sites. The woman that founded dogsbite is just a nutcase if you read everything she’s written.
Thirdly, a pit bull is a medium-sized dog, not a large dog. Potential bite force is a function only of dog size, as shown by National Geographic’s Dr. Brady Barr. The breed standards of the two different organizations that maintain American Pit Bull Terrier breed standards cap out at a maximum of 60 or 65 pounds, respectively, for the largest males. That’s smaller than a lab – and with less potential bite force than a lab. A pit bull might be able to get his jaws around a child’s neck but other breeds are larger and more powerful.
Fourthly, as mentioned above, pit bulls have been ruthlessly bred to be dog aggressive and people-gentle. For over two hundred years, a lab or Yorkie that bit was put out in the yard, but a pit that bit was killed. Police departments don’t use pit bulls as attack dogs (some ARE used as sniffer dogs; the largest drug bust ever was sniffed out by a police pit bull) because K-9 police know it’s hard to train a pit bull to attack because they’re so people-friendly. People who raise put bulls tell us they keep other breeds to guard their kennels, because the pit bulls will happily walk off with any stranger.
Breed-specific legislation aimed at stopping “pit bull attacks” has not reduced the incidence of bites in the jurisdictions in which it has been introduced.
The perception that “pit bulls attacking” is a problem arises from the interplay of several factors. For starters, people have a hard time identifying pit bulls generally. Also, there’s a tendency to assume, with any dog that bites, “if it bit, it was a pit.” Furthermore, pit bull attacks are exciting news – it’s cooler for a man to say he was bitten by a pit bull than a poodle; it’s more dramatic for a mom to “face down” a pit bull than a Labrador retriever; a police report describing an attacking pit bull is more “heroic” than one describing a mixed-breed bite; “pit bull attacks” sell newspapers in a way Dalmation attacks do not.
Fatal dog attacks are not as big a problem as news hysteria would lead us to believe – 33 overall in the US in 2007 out of a population of 300 million, 23 in 2008, but those are highs – nationally it’s been about 17 a year for the alst 40 years. Those deaths include trespassers and criminals as well as the innocent. A child is more likely to be killed by venetian blinds, and vastly more likely to be killed by a handgun, a car ride, or his or her parents.
The breeds of dogs involved in these attacks is harder to determine than breed-haters would like you to think, but generally when brred can be determined, it’s all over the map – in 2007, all 5 fatal attacks on adults who were not elderly (i.e., the healthy adult humans) all involved more than one dog (a duo or pack) and four different breeds were represented. It’s worth noting that any dog can kill a helpless infant – including a Jack Russell Terrier in an incident in Tennessee and a Pomeranian. What fatal attacks on children have in common – far moreso than breed – is the absence of adult supervision. In almost every case, the adults are not present at all or not paying attention.
The case of Violet Haaker is instructive. News reports that this 3-year-old girl had been killed by “AKC-registered purebred pit bulls” her mother was raising caused alarm in Florida.
But a simple websearch immediately revealed that Mr.s Haaker raised American Bulldogs, not pit bulls, and had a commercial kennel operation going. Furthermore, the AKC does not recognize pit bulls as a breed, so “AKC-registered” is an impossibility – and one that a reporter or editor could discover in a few minutes during lunch, with the most elementary fact-checking.
In fact, it turns out Mrs. Haaker was breeding her American Bulldogs for “prey drive” and selling them as “hog dogs” for chasing and attacking wild hogs.
We know that the three biggest risk factors in dog attacks are, in order from least to most dangerous, intact male dogs, chained dogs, and unsupervised children. Well, eventually it came out that Mrs. Haaker chained her breeding males (who have to be intact if they’re bred, right?) outside in the yard, and went inside, leaving 3-year-old Violet unsupervised with the dogs (and with traffic, pedos, gang warfare, drug lords, uncovered wells, giant cockroaches, alligators, the ocean, and whatever else an unsupervised child outdoors might wander into in Florida).
Florida is now considering banning pit bulls, partly because of the coverage of Violet’s death. The fact that no pit bulls were involved doesn’t seem to make any difference.
The truth is, although pit bulls as a breed are considerably less likely to hurt a human than the “guarding breeds,” which have been bred and socialized to be wary of strangers, any dog can theoretically do harm. Pit bulls are currently fashionable with the wrong kind of people – people who glamorize violence, abuse and neglect the dogs, and fail to respect that the dedication and stamina of these strongly-muscled dogs requires socialization and training. So some pit bull attacks that we hear about really do involve pit bulls.
But all breeds attack, all breeds bite. The woman in France who had the face transplant had her face ripped off by a Labrador Retriever, but that didn’t stop David Letterman from saying “[Pit bulls] will rip your face off” on national TV a few years later. My sister has a dangerous dog registered with Animal Control – a miniature poodle. The problem is, people don’t hear or think about the fact that all dogs can attack.
Malcolm Gladwell has written that it’s a mental error similar to racial profiling.
Look here. Six bullets down, the CDC specifically disavows that study’s accuracy and usefulness for determining breed tendencies and making policy. In fact, the scientists at the CDC have pointed out that because we do not know how many dogs of a given breed exist, and people are so notoriously bad at identifying breeds, breed bite statistics cannot be compiled scientifically by anyone. So “many” studies may exist, but scientists say they’re all crap.
Yes, that was what I said.