Fantastic post Sailboat!
If you have a small child and an animal free home, the safest bet is to keep it that way. It’s not only about temperment. Animals are unpredictable and hazardous because they lack the brainpower people do. A big animal can be hazardous to a small fragile child even if there is absolutely no malice involved. Cats with claws are dangerous to thin skinned small children as well. Even ferrets and rodents have been known to cause greivous injury to small children and infants. Animals are amoral because they don’t have the reasoning capability to be moral. That’s not to say fluffy is a killer. You simply don’t give them the same respect as a person for understanding right and wrong.
And yet are still more dangerous and violent than dogs.
This. And I say that as an animal lover, someone who already has several cats and dogs (including a probable pit mix), and has no intentions to get rid of them before having children or anything like that. If you have a three year old, you already have a massive amount of responsibility and basically no pet risk. Getting any pet on top of that, regardless of species or breed, adds extra responsibility and a very small amount of pet risk. Unless there’s some sort of extraordinary situation, just wait a few years before getting one. There will still be plenty of dogs that need homes.
You’re not going to get a 100% completely correct answer, but in any case it looks like you’re looking for something to confirm your fears.
Which are unfounded and have been ruthlessly exaggerated by fear mongers.
Others above have covered this topic well, so I don’t have much more to add, other than to say I’ve been around many dozens of pit bulls and pit bull mixes and all of them have been incredibly sweet dogs toward people. A couple of them were a bit tense around other dogs (not aggressive, but tense), but none towards people.
Dog attacks on people are so rare and the likelihood of breed misidentification is so high that you really cannot rationally jump to “ZOMG pit bulls are dangerous and must be banned” from reading about a small number of isolated incidents.
However, some people just need to be afraid and will not listen to reason.
I appreciate y’all keeping this civil.
I’ve read all your responses and thought about each one.
I’m still thinking about my conclusion, okay?
And this is the way it should be, IMHO: 1. Gather the facts. 2. Consider them thoroughly. 3. Draw a conclusion.
I used to be young and impetuous.
Now I’m neither.
Thanks
Quasi
No. Just had a need to know, Knorf.
Q
Okay, I was skimming after making my long post, and “make of it what you will” was what I focused on. Apologies for not giving you credit for having said that.
Quasi, are your concerns prompted by a specific dog or dogs that you worry about? Like in your neighborhood?
If so, one approach that may help is to assess the humans who train (or don’t train) the dog in question, either by observing them or, better still, getting to know them and asking questions. The humans involved, how and where they keep the dog, and how they treat/train/socialize the dog are certainly a factor in how much confidence you can have in a given dog’s temperament…maybe the predominating factor.
If you’re not thinking of a specific dog, that advice isn’t so helpful. 
Speaking of temperament, back on my soapbox for a minute. The American Temperament Testing Society subjects individual dogs to rigorous testing for temperament:
In ATTS tests, American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers (the three breeds most commonly accepted as “pit bulls”) score well. The APBT in particular (which is the archetypal breed Americans think of when they say “pit bull”) scores well even against familiar dog breeds:
AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER: 85.3%
AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD: 81.0%
BEAGLE: 81.0%
BORDER COLLIE: 80.6%
COCKER SPANIEL: 81.9%
DACHSHUND (STANDARD SMOOTH): 70.2%
DOBERMAN PINSCHER: 77.4%
GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG: 83.7%
GOLDEN RETRIEVER: 84.6%
GREYHOUND: 81.0%
ROTTWEILER: 83.0%
STANDARD POODLE: 85.0%
WEIMARANER: 80.2%
YORKSHIRE TERRIER: 82.1%
There are numerous caveats to this “data.” First and foremost, the dogs are submitted for this testing by their humans, and so “self” selection is going to bias the results toward “pass.” Also, some breeds have had many more individuals tested (notably the sorts of big, strong breed whose temperament might be a concern): 5097 Rottweilers have been tested by ATTS and only one Sealyham Terrier…he or she passed, but that doesn’t give the breed’s “100.0%” score a lot of confidence.
And lastly, breed tendencies are only that – tendencies, and humans tend to give them far more weight and influence than they deserve. All these dogs are dogs, first and foremost.
.
We cool. I thought you misunderstood my post. I appreciated your post, btw.
Sailboat,
No specific dog, just the breed in general.
Thanks for the ATTS test results, and I’ll take them with the caveat you suggested.
In Atlanta, we regularly see stories about attacks and dogs being “put down”, yet there are people who proudly own them and swear by their calm demeanor which seems to “go against the grain” of what we are being shown and told.
As I stated previously, I’m just trying to draw a conclusion. I consider myself an animal welfare advocate and I hate being “torn” like this about the issue.
Q
If you look at statistics on dog attacks, you will clearly see that ‘pit bulls’ or ‘pit bull mix’ are involved much more often than would be expected based on their population.
There are 3 possible reasons for this:
- the statistics are inaccurate; police tend to classify as ‘pit bull’ any dog that looks similar to one.
- pit bulls are inherently prone to attacks, having been bred that way for decades.
- pit bull owners are jerks, who chose the breed because of it’s ‘bad boy’ reputation, and then fail to train & socialize the dog properly.
Personally, I think ALL of these are partly true, but with the emphasis on the last one: bad owners. I’ve seen a friendly pit bull puppy being brutally ‘trained’ by its owner to be a mean, aggressive ‘guard’ dog. This guy had no idea how to raise a dog (or kids either, for that matter), but wanted one, and wanted a pit bull because it would “fit his image” with his homies.
So it seems to be rather a circle: pit bulls are somewhat aggressive, having been bred for that; so they are chosen by owners who want an aggressive dog with a bad reputation; and then when called to a dog attack, police list the dog as a pit bull because of their bad reputation.
While I’m totally with you on the other two points, this is not true in the way I think you mean it.
They have never been bred for human aggression – quite the opposite.
Look, a dog can make a distinction between a human and another dog and a prey animal. We believe this – the law believes bloodhounds track individual felons, not just “young males.” The law believes drug bust dogs can detect parts-per-million of cocaine in a shipment designed to disguise that scent. Everyone knows Labrador Retrievers treat ducks differently from humans. Rat terriers are aggressive toward rodents, but not humans. We as a society are fully prepared to believe that a given breed of dog can not only clearly distinguish between a human and the prey the breed was bred to hunt, but also that the dogs will behave completely differently toward prey than they do humans.
Except, for some reason, people have this mental block about pit bulls.
Believe me, the dog knows you are not a dog. Even the most dog-reactive dog (and not all pit bulls react badly to other dogs!) feels differently toward you than toward his perceived enemy, another dog. Pit bulls have been ruthlessly selected NOT to be aggressive toward humans. Dog experts say you are probably safer separating two fighting pit bulls than two random other breeds, because pit bulls are not supposed to redirect their aggression onto a human being, whereas other breeds don’t know what to do when they get revved up.
Look, it’s ugly to talk about, but generations of “dogmen” raised “gamebred” (fighting) pit bulls with the ironclad rule: “manbiters die.” The idea was expressly that a human handler had to be safe reaching into the pit and separating the dogs. This is why Michael Vick killed pit bulls with his bare hands without fear that his $100-million-dollar-hands would be damaged by these dogs: he knew they are unusually submissive toward humans.
Most people would say their loyal dogs of any breed “would die for me.” Pit bulls literally did exactly that for 200-250 years or so. Yes, they can be dog-reactive or dog-aggressive, but as a generalization they are less threatening toward humans than any of the guarding breeds and even most of the independent-minded herding breeds. Pit bulls were called the “nanny dogs” for centuries because experienced handlers knew that they were good with children – tolerant of pain and abuse, loving and submissive toward all humans. (Generalizations again, of course.)
I am not making this up – there’s widespread literature on the subject for anyone who wants to do the reading.
To sum up, pit bulls are “aggressive” in the same way beagles are aggressive, or greyhounds, or for that matter housecats: they can be aggressive toward the prey they were bred and raised to attack, but they know humans are not that prey, and they can distinguish between the two.
And they’re by no means all aggressive toward anything. Cesar Milan, the self-styled “dog whisperer,” brings a pit bull with him to socialize other dogs because in this particular case, he is sure of his dog’s calm confidence and submissive behavior. One of my dogs, Simone, is a lover at heart; during a police-sponsored people-and-dogs walk, she goes to the front of the pack by choice, but when another dog whimpers or yelps, she doubles back and begins licking and encouraging the dog who is complaining.
Dogs are individuals.
Psst – see my CDC link. Scientists are on record saying that you actually can not see that – both halves of the claim are unsupportable. Identification of biting dogs as “pit bulls” is unreliable at best and fabricated at worst – and the population of any breed cannot be known accurately enough to make statistical claims (a problem that is even worse when gang members and the underground economy are involved).
Claims about bite statistics by breed are akin to anti-vaccination “evidence” or "proof: that the World Trade Center was imploded by aliens – they’re not accepted by scientists or dog experts.
What are you trying to prove, here? Humans are more dangerous than dogs? How is that related to the discussion we’re having?
Pitbull owner, lover and defender. Yes, pitbulls will all eat your children and grandparents and will maul anyone within reach of their deadly locking jaws. Then they will rape your daughters/wife/sisters and eventually turn on you, the owner, and kill you mercilessly. So never, under any circumstances own or go near a pit bull. Line breeding is used with lots of animals so that also means you should never own an animal unless it is dead and you are just using it for food.
That is what you want to hear? Right? I’m of the opinion that anyone that owns any animal that attacks a person (unless it is performing a task such as protecting you from an intruder or trespasser) should be held criminally liable. If you’re animal gets loose and attacks someone that isn’t a threat to you or your property then YOU should go to jail.
On a funny note, I had to put my pit bull in a crate when I went to work or he would break out of the house so he could go to the bus stop to hang out with the kids waiting for the bus. He hated being alone and loved people. He literally unlatched a window, opened the window, and jumped out. He also tried to dig his way out and tore up my floor. But as much as he loved people, he also loved to fight big male dogs and kill cats. He would not attack a female dog, a puppy, a small dog or a person. He was a dog rescued from a fighting ring. He passed away a little after his 19th birthday.
RIP SargentG!
Any dog can and will bite when provoked properly. Any animal with a mouth can and will bite. Now if your dog has been evaluated and passed a temperament exam and rated as good with children then you should have little to no worries. All children should be supervised around animals. Period.
Well said, Sailboat, and thanks. Well said indeed.
I have never owned one, but I’ve been around so many friendly, dorky, goofy, lovably pit bulls it really just pains me to keep seeing the irrational, baseless fear arising over and over. Talks of banning the breed are even worse (glad no one is advocated such in this thread.)
Of course you can’t guarantee the dog will never bite your kid. Any dog can and will bite under the right circumstances, but well-bred, well-trained, well-treated pit bulls have a much shorter list of right circumstances than most. Of course, the three wells are vitally important in considering how likely a dog of any breed is to bite.
A dog with temperament abnormalities due to inbreeding is more likely to bite, regardless of breed. A dog that has been poorly socialized or is untrained is likewise more likely to bite. The same goes for a dog that is being or has been mistreated. This is why anyone who works with animals will tell you that toy breeds are vastly more likely to bite than big dogs–they’re far less likely to be trained and socialized because they’re little and allegedly harmless.
Boy that’s my dog (lab-pit mix) to a T.