CDC National Dog Bite Prevention Week
(emphasis mine)
From your own cite:
(emphasis mine)
These flaws (the same ones noted in my study) seem awfully important to hand-wave away.
It is not pit bulls. It is just dogs that look exactly like pits but for some mysterious reason are not. Lets define a pit. It is a different dog than the ones that attack people and dogs. If it attacks it is a pretender which always fools the uninformed and silly people who can not tell the difference.
Bullshit. nearly everyone knows the difference… They spend a lot off time on the news with pictures of them ripping peopleand dogs apart.
I have been going to dog shows for over 50 years. I have petted pits. My neighbor owned a pit. (named Lawsuit) I think we have a pretty good idea of what is a pit bull.
So if everyone knows what a pit bull is, then why do pictures of Staffordshire terriers and American Staffordshires and bull terriers and so many other breeds so often get misidentified as pit bulls?
No doubt that is a factor. But why are nasty people who want aggressive dogs drawn to those breeds? Presumably they could choose German Shepherds or Dobermans which can likewise be big and dangerous and suitably menacing.
As with most things people try to choose the best tool for the job they have in mind.
And as for hand waving you are still ignoring their base conclusion that “despite these limitations and concerns…there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.”
That’s the default attitude of small dog owners, “oh my dog is so teensy weensy it’s harmless”.
In MY OWN EXPERIENCE (please note this is my own personal experience…have I said that enough times?) small dogs are FAR more agressive than most large dogs because they are treated as lap dogs. thewhole “ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh it’s so cute” attitude and treatment makes little dogs more snappy and dangerous to children.
If someone with a big dog tells you their dog is safe I would believe them 10 times over the owner of a small yappy dog.
The NZ govt has banned American pit bulls though, mostly due to the German Shepard-Dobermen-Rottweiler-Pitt Bull chain of fierce dogs! It’s ridiculous!
The new dangerous dogs are the handbag variety. They are treated with kid gloves, poorly socialised and over indulged. Somehow they have morphed into “babies” not dogs. They have become nasty snappy body guards rather than well adjusted pets.
Pitbulls need to wait patiently until the thing-crossed-with-a-teeny-tiny dog gets into the news, then everyone will forget about them…when was the last time you heard about a German Shepard turns bad story?
And just for transperency, I own a poodle (yes mock me, I said a POODLE!) but she is a Standard Poodle and she won’t fit in anyones gym bag let alone handbag but still a poodle…what kind of sensible person owns a poodle!
That’s not the question. You’re not moving the goalposts, are you? The question I asked is "what statistics prove that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs?
I’m not ignoring it, I’m using my own judgment and critical thinking skills. Based on the severe limitations that they themselves list (e.g. relying too much on media reports, the difficulty in identifying breed of a given dog, impossibility of knowing how many dogs of a breed are in the general pop, etc), plus the fact that they haven’t defined “pit bull type dog,” plus the fact that (from my other cite) the CDC has gone on record as saying that breed is not a good predictor of a dog’s likeliness to bite, I question that conclusion.
Furthermore, the article itself does not say what you think it does. “There appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities” does not back up Mosier’s claim (what I was originally challenging) that:
For one thing, it is dependent on all the limitations I listed above. For another, the article refers to “rottweilers and pit bull type dogs.” So the article shows that “It appears, based on flawed statistics that we ourselves admit are impossible to know, that Rottweilers and pit bull type dogs are more likely to be involved in dog bite related fatalities.”
If the effect is that profound, surely there will be more or better stats to back up the assertion that pit bulls cause more deaths than other dogs. Where did Mosier go anyway? He’s the one who said that this has already been proven over and over.
Yes, a bad Rotttie is more dangerous than a bad toy poodle. So what? A bad cow is more dangerous than a bad turtle. Does that make cows bad? Any dog that has been properly raised and socialized, and is under the control of it’s owner, has an extremely small chance of being a danger to anyone. Extremely small.
There are packs of wild dogs running loose in Baghdad, terrorizing neighborhoods. The police are having to shoot them. Do you suppose Pits and Rotties make up a large percentage of them? No. They are most likely family pets, mutts who have been allowed to run loose, procreate, and revert to a wild state. No socialization, no control = bad dogs. No socialization, no control is a function of bad owners.
Go ahead. The CDC itself says those ID’s are useless, as has been pointed out several times in this thread.
Wrong. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier may ALSO have been called the “nanny dog,” but the American Pit Bull Terrier has definitely been so called, historically, and for excellent reasons.
Dogsbite.org is a hate site filled with misinformation.
All this reminds me of the arguments Bush & Co. put out to deny global warming is a real issue. Always “you need more studies, you need better stats, etc.”
You can wish it away all you want. As has been noted defining a dog’s particular breed can be difficult even for experts. Nonetheless I doubt they are confusing poodles with pit bulls.
Despite the limitations they admit to in their study they still feel a conclusion can be drawn pointing to an issue with Rotts and Pit Bull-type dogs. There are plenty of other large and potentially lethal breeds of dogs out there. German Shepherds, Dobermans, Akitas and so on if they were of a mind to have at someone.
You are suggesting that somehow, if they just did a better study, the results would change and we’d find that there is no predilection for one breed to be more dangerous than another. I seriously doubt that would be the case.
I have known many Pit Bull-type dogs and far and away they have all been friendly (saw some not friendly ones come into the shelter). I am a dog lover through and through and genuinely believe any breed, raised well, can make a fine and safe pet. However, I think a Pit Bull-type takes a bit better care and caution than a (say) Lab would. It’s like buying a gun. Hopefully anyone who does so would have some basic training. If they buy a machine gun (nevermind they can’t) I would hope they had extra training to be able to safely handle that weapon.
Sadly any yo-yo can get a dog and left to their own devices a Pit Bull-type is more likely to exhibit behaviors we do not want which in part comes out as aggression. It is that dog’s default state. It is what they were originally bred for and while a lot of that has been bred out it is still there more than in other dogs. Combine that with a uniquely powerful dog and all the weapons at a dog’s disposal and you have a particularly lethal combination.
Maybe Labs are more dangerous! Seems they are upping their game! :eek:
And your side reminds me of the arguments white supremacists use against people of other races. “It’s so obvious! Look at these numbers! It’s inherent in the breed!”
No, I am saying that because of:
- the nature of dog breeds (i.e. not objectionably verifiable)
- our knowledge of the total numbers of dogs of a given breed in the general population (i.e. absolutely unknown)
- the influence of bad owners on “bad” breeds (incalculable)
- misidentification of breeds by the media (significant)
it is impossible for statistics to prove that pit bulls (or any breed - I’ll re-iterate that “rottweilers and pit bull type dogs” are not a breed) are more dangerous than other dogs (witness the hedging I hilighted in that CDC article). Anyone who insists that statistics have done so is lying, because there are no such statistics.
You can say that in your experience, or based on your judgment, or whatever, that you think pit bulls are more dangerous, and I wouldn’t challenge that. But to say that statistics support your position is not consistent with the facts.
Cherry picked numbers when there are studies which directly oppose that conclusion. The CDC while acknowledging the limits of its study still felt a conclusion that there is an issue with the breeds is merited.
If you want to call the CDC an agency with an agenda against Pit Bulls and Rottweilers make your case.
And you have NO stats. What stats there are refute your position. Those stats need to be taken with caution but it is a lot more than you’ve got.
My position is “there are no statistics which prove that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.” I cannot prove a negative, and I have not made any assertions beyond that.
ETA: I’m assuming you mean “what stats are there that support your position,” to which I would once again reply the CDC’s statement that “There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” - which is as close as I can get to proving a negative.
-
Read any dog website that discusses breed traits. You will see over and over again the same things said for any given breed. While any single dog may break the mold in general enough people have been around enough dogs and raised them to discern distinct traits that a given breed evidences. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
-
They do not know dog populations with certainty but again this is evasive on your part. Do you suggest that 60% of all dogs in the US are Rottweilers or Pit Bulls? Unless you suppose a truly massive number of these breeds then they remain disproportionate in lethal attacks. AKC numbers certainly do not support these breeds being unusually popular and anecdotal though it may be my trips to the dog park does not see more than half the dogs there being Rotts/Pits (indeed I do not see those breeds all that often at all although they are there).
-
Bad owners almost always = bad dogs. With you on that one. But then you must suppose that other breeds do not get bad owners in equal measure. I suppose we might guess that bad owners with bad ideas may be drawn to Pit Bulls but then you have to ask why they opt for Pit Bulls? Why not German Shepherds or Doberman Pinschers? They can be quite dangerous if someone wanted them to be. One would think they’d get their fair share.
-
Misidentification can only get you so far. Granted it is not a science and cannot always be easy to tell but most people I know can spot the difference between a Lab and a German Shepherd and a Pit Bull. No one I know who has a little clue would mistake one for the other. So while some misidentification can certainly happen I cannot see the balance getting massively tilted in this respect. (BTW…what does it take to get a breed identified for an attack…a distraught mother’s say so or police/animal control?)