Pit bulls

[Whack-a-Mole]

@cowgirl

What studies?

That was in response to someone suggesting I am like a White Supremacist “proving” a particular race is deficient somehow. Do we want to derail this into studies proving black people are as capable as white people?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@cowgirl

“Pit bull type dog” is not a breed.

I understand that.

If you want to tell me that really Staffordshire Terriers are pussy cats and have never hurt a fly and that all attacks by a Pit Bull-type dog are strictly reserved to American Pit Bull Terriers then fine. Not sure that helps your case though.

[Justin_Bailey]

@gonzomax

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.

The shelter I adopted my “pit bull” from identified the dog as a Boxer/Terrier (presumably American Pit Bull)/Shepherd mix.

If my dog ever attacks someone (she is a nipper around me, so I worry a little), what breed would you say did the attack?

[cowgirl]

@Whack-a-Mole

• Read any dog website that discusses breed traits. You will see over and over again the same things said for any given breed.

I am not denying that, but it in no way supports the claim that statistics show that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.

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.

First of all, “rottweilers and pit bull type dogs” are not the same as “pit bulls,” so claims about “rottweilers and pit bull type dogs” cannot be attributed to “pit bulls.”

Also, the other study I cited concluded that

.82%. Eighty-two hundredths of a percent of hospitalizations due to dog bites in the U.S. each year are a result of pit bull bites or attacks, if the press has accurately represented the number of serious attacks by pit bulls and pit mixes.

So if anything the matter is up for debate, and certainly not proven to say that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.

AKC numbers certainly do not support these breeds being unusually popular

As the CDC cite you keep bringing up points out, there is no way to measure the popularity of dogs in the population, and this is an essential element in calculating probability of any given breed to bite.

• 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.

These are all very interesting questions, but not ones I need to answer in order to demonstrate that statistics have not proven that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.

• 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.

Even if you’re right (which I doubt, even experts disagree on the subject), they would have trouble at the margins. Any mix breed containing good portions of lab, boxer, mastiff, bulldog, etc, may have short hair and a stocky build and a short snout and look something like a pit bull. How do you conclusively prove whether one of those is a pit bull?

How many drops of pit bull blood make a dog a pit bull? Even if you could answer that question, how do you figure out how many drops of pit bull blood are in any given dog?

Also there is an epistemological question. The only way that a breed can be objectively proven is is if a purebred dog has papers. A dog with no papers has no breed. (ooh! Crazy!) I don’t mean to get all philosophical but think about it for a minute.

Given the well-documented predisposition of the media and average observers to define a pit bull as a “short-haired dog who attacks someone,” and absent any objective standard by which to determine the breed of the dog, I think misidentification is quite a significant impediment to proving that one breed is more dangerous than another.

Good science relies on clearly defined terms. Not only is the term “pit bull” poorly defined, but it is not applied with any objectivity or consistency. That’s bad science.

“I’ll know it when I see it” definitions make for bad public policy.

(BTW…what does it take to get a breed identified for an attack…a distraught mother’s say so or police/animal control?)

Good question. In Toronto if a dog is arrested on suspicion of being a pit bull, I am told that the people working in the shelter that day vote on whether or not it is a pit bull. Seems scientific to me.

If you want to tell me that really Staffordshire Terriers are pussy cats and have never hurt a fly and that all attacks by a Pit Bull-type dog are strictly reserved to American Pit Bull Terriers then fine. Not sure that helps your case though.

Not sure why I need to tell you that in order to demonstrate that no statistics have proven that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.

Are you still asserting that statistics have proven that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds? If so, can you show me the statistics?

If not, my dispute is with Mosier, but he appears to have dropped his turd and run.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@cowgirl

I am not denying that, but it in no way supports the claim that statistics show that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.

It seemed to me you were saying we cannot discern “traits” for dog breeds. I was merely pointing out that we can and do regularly. That in and of itself does not “prove” anything by itself. When someone starts noting that APBTs as a breed have a noted aggressiveness then it is certainly suggestive and worth paying attention to. Again that does not “prove” APBTs are all aggressive but in general will lean that way and should be accounted for in their upbringing.

First of all, “rottweilers and pit bull type dogs” are not the same as “pit bulls,” so claims about “rottweilers and pit bull type dogs” cannot be attributed to “pit bulls.”

Now you are moving the goal posts. The CDC study lumped Rottweilers and Pit Bull-type dogs together. I was merely adhering to their wording. According to their study Pit Bulls were #1 and Rottweilers a semi-distant #2 and #3 was far behind both.

As the CDC cite you keep bringing up points out, there is no way to measure the popularity of dogs in the population, and this is an essential element in calculating probability of any given breed to bite.

The CDC cite noted that it was highly unlikely to suppose Rottweilers and Pit Bull-types accounted for such a substantial portion of the dog population to seriously skew their stats.

These are all very interesting questions, but not ones I need to answer in order to demonstrate that statistics have not proven that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds.

Have to? No. But if you want to protect the breed then you would do well to make the case that the dog is fine and it is only the owners who are fucked up. Otherwise people will look at the numbers and decide it is the dog’s fault and not the owner’s fault.

Even if you’re right (which I doubt, even experts disagree on the subject), they would have trouble at the margins. Any mix breed containing good portions of lab, boxer, mastiff, bulldog, etc, may have short hair and a stocky build and a short snout and look something like a pit bull. How do you conclusively prove whether one of those is a pit bull?

How many drops of pit bull blood make a dog a pit bull? Even if you could answer that question, how do you figure out how many drops of pit bull blood are in any given dog?

Also there is an epistemological question. The only way that a breed can be objectively proven is is if a purebred dog has papers. A dog with no papers has no breed. (ooh! Crazy!) I don’t mean to get all philosophical but think about it for a minute.

The CDC cite specifically broke out purebred dogs from mixes. How they made this determination I have no idea. You’ll have to take up their methodology and impossibility for them to make this determination with the CDC. For my part I am willing to go with the CDC knows their business when compiling such stats and dutifully reported them till you prove them wrong.

Given the well-documented predisposition of the media and average observers to define a pit bull as a “short-haired dog who attacks someone,” and absent any objective standard by which to determine the breed of the dog, I think misidentification is quite a significant impediment to proving that one breed is more dangerous than another.

Again the CDC thought they could. While doubtless some misidentification occurs I doubt anyone is mistaking a Lab for a Pit Bull-type. Perhaps a Boxer could get conflated by someone with no clue. Point is you make it seem as if it is near impossible to make any breed determination and that without 100% certitude in identifying the breed absolutely no numbers can be collected or remotely reliable. I think that is patently wrong.

Are you still asserting that statistics have proven that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds? If so, can you show me the statistics?

I have shown you stats but apparently none are sufficient. Statistics are finicky things but you ignore suggestive trends at your peril and the trends in the stats are distinct and glaring. If their methodology was so screwy presumably any dog could have popped to the top. If their numbers came out and said Pugs were the most dangerous dog we’d all immediately have our bull shit meters pegged. Likewise they could have gotten German Shepherds or Akitas or Mastiffs on their list and we’d all think that could be…certainly they are all powerful and potentially dangerous dogs. You choose to ignore ALL evidence unless it is PERFECT evidence which is silly.

[Acid_Lamp]

HERE is a picture game in which many look-alike breeds are images with an actual pitbull. There are plenty of other breeds, and innumerable mixes that would get conflated with the actual animal.

People have a tendency to call any short haired, short muzzled dog a “pitbull”.

[Sailboat]

@Whack-a-Mole

I have shown you stats but apparently none are sufficient. Statistics are finicky things but you ignore suggestive trends at your peril and the trends in the stats are distinct and glaring.

The actual CDC website contains the previously cited disclaimer that this study CANNOT BE USED to draw ANY SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS about which breeds bite more. For the purpose you are trying to use this study, this old (2000) study, it has been disavowed by its creators.

So for scientific purposes, for drawing the conclusion you’ve drawn, it’s NOT proof, not evidence, not even statistics – it’s mumbo-jumbo. Worse than that, it’s The Protocols of the Pitbulls of Zion: pseudo-authoritative hate literature.

Here’s an interesting line of thinking that drew no complaints from Dopers in another thread:
Do the actions of an individual tar the entire group?

I’m not one to claim media bias…usually. But if you think there’s nothing to the claim that the hysteria over pit bulls is fueled by sensationalist gossip, media and internet accounts, behold a citation linked to on the first page of this thread – you ARE reading the citations, right?

Saint Bernard mauls boy.

Take a moment to look at that article. What’s wrong with that picture?

The article is about a St. Bernard mauling someone severely. The PHOTO is of a pit bull terrier.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Sailboat

The actual CDC website contains the previously cited disclaimer that this study CANNOT BE USED to draw ANY SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS about which breeds bite more. For the purpose you are trying to use this study, this old (2000) study, it has been disavowed by its creators.

So for scientific purposes, for drawing the conclusion you’ve drawn, it’s NOT proof, not evidence, not even statistics – it’s mumbo-jumbo. Worse than that, it’s The Protocols of the Pitbulls of Zion: pseudo-authoritative hate literature.

Protocols of who/what?

For a study that has been “disavowed” it is remarkable the CDC still keeps it posted. They note its flaws yet still think the stats are suggestive enough to merit notice.

CDC a bin of Protocol of Zion Pit Bull hating loonies? Ok. How about the American Vetrinary Medicine Association who seems happy enough to use the same study?

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)

SOURCE: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 in: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association Volume 217 Issue 6 ()

Helluva thing for them to cite a crap study. Guess they are in on the conspiracy too.
The lunatic fringe marches on with the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Results. We identified 109 dog bite-related fatalities, of which 57% were less than 10 years of age. The death rate for neonates was two orders of magnitude higher than for adults and the rate for children one order of magnitude higher. Of classifiable deaths, 22% involved an unrestrained dog off the owner’s property, 18% involved a restrained dog on the owner’s property, and 59% involved an unrestrained dog on the owner’s property. Eleven attacks involved a sleeping infant; 19 dogs involved in fatal attacks had a prior history of aggression; and 19 of 20 classifiable deaths involved an unneutered dog. Pit bulls, the most commonly reported breed, were involved in 24 deaths; the next most commonly reported breeds were rottweilers (16) and German shepherds (10).

SOURCE: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/6/891

Maybe it is an American thing…then again maybe not. From the Centre of Forensic Medicine in Belgium:

Pit Bull Terriers, German Shepherds and Rottweilers are the breeds most often involved in these fatal attacks, 70% of which are committed by a pet dog within the owners yard or its proximity [9].

SOURCE: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r518x0whqx7dlv2d/fulltext.pdf?page=1 (PDF)

You should call these guys and let them know what idiots they all are. Clearly they have no clue what they are about. :rolleyes:

[Miltonyz]

You’ll note I said “Pit Bull type terriers”. I fully realize that there are several breeds fall under that umbrella and none of them are on that AKC list.

My mistake. I misread your sentence.

And showing adoption stats are not useful. Just means there are a lot of unwanted Pit Bulls (and labs are so ubiquitous it is not surprising they are on there).

You realize the inherent hypocrisy in your statement. To paraphrase “of course their is a lot of labs in shelters there are tons of them in the U.S.” preceded by “yes there is a lot of pitbulls in shelters but that does not mean their is a lot of pitbulls in the U.S.”

I used to volunteer at the Anti Cruelty Society adopting out dogs and we’d rarely ever see something like a German Shepherd

Your shelter must have been an abberation. Petfinder also shows a very high number of German Shepards in shelters.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Miltonyz

You realize the inherent hypocrisy in your statement. To paraphrase “of course their is a lot of labs in shelters there are tons of them in the U.S.” preceded by “yes there is a lot of pitbulls in shelters but that does not mean their is a lot of pitbulls in the U.S.”

Here is a list of the 50 most popular dog breeds. Not one of the “Pit Bull-type” dogs is listed. AKC had Labs as #1 and German Shepherds as #3. If we ignored any numbers on the dogs then you’d be right. But if you take into account the popularity of a breed and find more of one that does not even make the top 50 in shelters then it makes you wonder why that might be so.

Your shelter must have been an abberation. Petfinder also shows a very high number of German Shepards in shelters.

Not saying GSDs cannot be found in shelters but for whatever reason they were relatively rare in our shelter (although plenty you could tell were a mix of something that included GSD). Again as the third most popular breed one would expect a fair number to end up in shelters.

[Miltonyz]

Because you are using AKC numbers which are a poor way of tracking dog breeds. In statistics there is no way that would be excepted. IT is self selecting and not represenative of the population as a whole. Especially when there is no APBT listed on the AKC website. If you included the ADBA the number of pitbulls would be higher but you are still looking at a self selecting sample.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Miltonyz

Because you are using AKC numbers which are a poor way of tracking dog breeds. In statistics there is no way that would be excepted. IT is self selecting and not represenative of the population as a whole. Especially when there is no APBT listed on the AKC website. If you included the ADBA the number of pitbulls would be higher but you are still looking at a self selecting sample.

Doing the best I can. Again the numbers may not be ideal and perhaps impossible to collect exactly. Everywhere I look Pit Bull type dogs do not make most lists. Of course on the web they may all be pulling from AKC…usually they do not say where they got their numbers.

Most lists except these two that I found:

United Kennel Club has the APBT listed at #2 in popularity. That said four of the top ten in their list are Coonhounds so seems they are a niche group near as I can tell (which is not to say they are not a good organization…they may well be for all I know).

The Kennel Club listed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier at #5 and the Bull Terrier at #18. No clue what that group’s deal is. Just offering for completeness sake.

[Contrapuntal]

@Whack-a-Mole

It seemed to me you were saying we cannot discern “traits” for dog breeds. I was merely pointing out that we can and do regularly.

Fine. The dogs you are so concerned with were bred to be dog aggressive, but not human aggressive, because the owners needed to be able to handle them. Again, bred for non-human aggression. So, what’s there to worry about?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Contrapuntal

Fine. The dogs you are so concerned with were bred to be dog aggressive, but not human aggressive, because the owners needed to be able to handle them. Again, bred for non-human aggression. So, what’s there to worry about?

Can aggression be so carefully compartmentalized in an animal? The very nature of aggression suggests to me you cannot. Not completely at least and having it overflow to be aggressive to the “wrong” thing does not seem the least bit surprising to me. Even humans do that.

[Contrapuntal]

@Whack-a-Mole

Can aggression be so carefully compartmentalized in an animal? The very nature of aggression suggests to me you cannot. Not completely at least and having it overflow to be aggressive to the “wrong” thing does not seem the least bit surprising to me. Even humans do that.

Got it. Dogs breed true for particular traits unless you say they don’t. Nice argument.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Contrapuntal

Got it. Dogs breed true for particular traits unless you say they don’t. Nice argument.

Define “breed true”? Tell me how you only get dog aggression in a dog but zero aggression to anything else?

German Shepherds are smart, even tempered dogs. I have met GSDs that are dumb as bricks and others that did not have a stable temperament at all despite being 100% GSD. German Shepherds in general will hew to their breed traits. APBTs in general should hew to theirs and may make great family pets.

Additionally, reading up on APBTs there is a very strong emphasis on a strong owner and the huge importance of proper socialization. This is of course good advice for any dog but with the APBT the suggestion seems to be more that this dog is for the advanced, capable dog owner. The implication being that without this the dog’s innate traits will cause trouble.

Besides, does it surprise you that some APBTs might use their innate aggression, an aggression they were designed to have, towards something other than another dog? Or once programmed with APBT genes they simply cannot see their way to be aggressive in general short of a die hard program of brain washing by their owners?

Have you spent much time around dogs? If so I wonder how you can make these suggestions.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Contrapuntal

Fine. The dogs you are so concerned with were bred to be dog aggressive, but not human aggressive, because the owners needed to be able to handle them. Again, bred for non-human aggression. So, what’s there to worry about?

That’s bullshit. The primary breeding goal was to achieve a winner in the pits. This myth you are propagating has no foundation. Even today, owners are handling human aggressive dogs without any problem to themselves.

[Contrapuntal]

@Whack-a-Mole

Define “breed true”? Tell me how you only get dog aggression in a dog but zero aggression to anything else?

Well, I never said that, did I? I am just responding to your repeated assertions that pit bulls are mean because they are bred that way. You can’t have it both ways. Either breeding makes the dog, or it doesn’t.

APBTs in general should hew to theirs and may make great family pets.

As far as anyone has shown in this thread, they do.

Additionally, reading up on APBTs there is a very strong emphasis on a strong owner and the huge importance of proper socialization. This is of course good advice for any dog but with the APBT the suggestion seems to be more that this dog is for the advanced, capable dog owner. The implication being that without this the dog’s innate traits will cause trouble.

Sorry? So dogs *do *breed true? This *is *getting confusing.

Besides, does it surprise you that some APBTs might use their innate aggression, an aggression they were designed to have, towards something other than another dog? Or once programmed with APBT genes they simply cannot see their way to be aggressive in general short of a die hard program of brain washing by their owners?

Perhaps. “Some” being the operative word. “Some” Cocker Spaniels are nasty animals. Is anyone trying to regulate that breed?

Have you spent much time around dogs? If so I wonder how you can make these suggestions.

Oodles of time. I live with a Jack Russell, a 30 pound terrier mix, and a Rottweiler. 2 or 3 times a week a blind Jack Russell stays at my house. Every day I am at a friend’s house, taking care of her 3 Wheaton Terriers. I do dog care for a Golden, and Black Labrador. Sometimes 2 other dogs stay with the Lab. I am familiar with a Pit Bull who is walked by my house ever day. (He’s a big sweetie.) In the past I was very active in a local Rottweiler Rescue. They often had a few Pits who needed homes. Sometimes they had to stay a while at my house. So I think it’s fair to say that yes, I have spent some time around dogs.

[Contrapuntal]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

That’s bullshit. The primary breeding goal was to achieve a winner in the pits. This myth you are propagating has no foundation. Even today, owners are handling human aggressive dogs without any problem to themselves.

Then what’s the problem with the breed, if even human aggressive dogs can be handled with ease?

It’s not a myth, by the way.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Contrapuntal

Well, I never said that, did I? I am just responding to your repeated assertions that pit bulls are mean because they are bred that way. You can’t have it both ways. Either breeding makes the dog, or it doesn’t.

They were originally bred to be mean. Some of that has been bred out of course but not entirely. You suggest that this meanness will only be directed towards other dogs (and I suppose bulls) and likewise suggest that towards humans they are just pussy cats.

I am saying I do not think you can so rigidly control innate aggression.

As far as anyone has shown in this thread, they do.

Want anecdotes of Pit Bull attacks to counter that? We can go there if you want.

Sorry? So dogs *do *breed true? This *is *getting confusing.

As I noted above even bred true an APBT is a loaded gun…moreso than most other breeds. Handled correctly they can be fine but if they go off lookout.

Perhaps. “Some” being the operative word. “Some” Cocker Spaniels are nasty animals. Is anyone trying to regulate that breed?

There is a BIG difference between a Cocker Spaniel mauling you and an APBT mauling you. Like the difference between a pellet gun and a .44.

Oodles of time. I live with a Jack Russell, a 30 pound terrier mix, and a Rottweiler. 2 or 3 times a week a blind Jack Russell stays at my house. Every day I am at a friend’s house, taking care of her 3 Wheaton Terriers. I do dog care for a Golden, and Black Labrador. Sometimes 2 other dogs stay with the Lab. I am familiar with a Pit Bull who is walked by my house ever day. (He’s a big sweetie.) In the past I was very active in a local Rottweiler Rescue. They often had a few Pits who needed homes. Sometimes they had to stay a while at my house. So I think it’s fair to say that yes, I have spent some time around dogs.

For all that experience then you ask the oddest questions. Ones you should know the answer to. I can only guess you are being deliberately contrary else you would not be asking about dog traits and the like. I am sure you have noticed distinct traits in the various breeds you are familiar with.