Ah, yes. The study so “interesting” that the CDC abandoned it’s methodology shortly after its publication.
Of course different breeds have different traits. This is easily observable.
What’s not easily observable is which traits will appear in mixes (and since all of your studies cite “pit bull types”, they must be assumed to be mixes). No one can tell which traits from which breeds will manifest in a mix just by looking at it…
I suggested no such thing. I only suggested that if you insist that breeding is the trump card, then you must accept that fact that human aggressive dogs were selected against in the breeding.
I would love them. Please be sure to validate the identification of the dog as a pit bull.
Not more so than most other breeds. That is where you are making your mistake. You give me pit puppy, and a Golden puppy of similar canine temperaments. I can turn either one into the meanest son of a bitch on the block, or into a well-behaved model canine citizen. No problem.
Of course there is. So what? Your claim is that the *breed *is more likely to behave badly, a claim that is unsubstantiated. You supported that by saying “some.” My point is that “some” is a meaningless word in this case.
No one is disputing that a bad pit bull is more dangerous than a bad Cocker. The question is whether there are more of the one than the other, a question you have failed to answer.
Can you be specific?
Sigh. And sigh again. Please show ANYWHERE I have said that breeds do not have identifiable traits. ANYWHERE. Or shut up about it. Please.
Pit Bull-types refers not to mixes (well I suppose it can) but more to a few breeds deemed to be very similar. In particular Staffordshire Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and American Pit Bull Terrier. May be some others in there but those are the most often cited.
Again I have seen nothing to suggest that human aggression can be completely disassociated from just plain aggression. Dogs are pack animals so even if the dog is capable of human aggression it generally will leave the “pack leader” alone. Most dog attacks occur against young kids and a dog may view them as lower in the pack pecking order and thus a potential target. That and/or they are an easy target compared to an adult human.
Ok…for the following I am guessing the people who had the dog for 5 years knew they had a Pit Bull. In the second I am likewise guessing the family knew they had a pit bull in their house.
Yes more than other breeds. The CDC study noted purebred dogs. They noted far more deaths caused by Pit Bulls. That study, while it has its faults, is very suggestive and more than anything else anyone here has provided. If it was just bad owners why not see GSDs up there? Or Dobermans? Or Akitas? Or Mastiffs?
Sure we could make a vicious Pomeranian if we wanted to but far and away we do not see deaths by Pomeranian (that one outlier excepted).
Of course it is “some”. If every APBT that was born turned into a frothing Cujo there’d be no discussion. Most are fine, some are not. Among various breeds the Pit Bull-types are more likely to turn aggressive. And as for unsubstantiated again I have provided the CDC study which is likewise published with the American Veterinary Association as well as numbers from Pediatric Physicians and a Belgium forensics study. Of the two of us you are the one with no numbers and nitpicking.
My turn to ::sigh::
Read up thread. I have provided numbers.
You talked about “breeding true” then declined to define breeding true but want to hold me to what “breeding true” means to you so I can answer it. Further, your posts seems to indicate it is all nurture and no nature for dogs (as evidenced by raising a bad golden puppy). If you have been around dogs so much you know that while nurture is critical to a good dog different breeds exhibit different traits.
Put it this way…you are walking across a field and a dog unknown to you with no owner approaches. Would you be more comfortable if it was a Lab or a Pit Bull?
I have a pro pit bull site here that is fighting back by listing published attacks by breeds other than pit bulls.
Here’s one
Does anyone dispute other dogs besides Pit Bulls bite?
What was the stat…something like 4.2 million dog bites per year? Heck, I’d wager the majority of bites come from little dogs. They just do not usually send you to the hospital when they bite. Just a guess…do not ask me for cites on that one.
No one said it could. Please stop with this misleading bullshit.
Two examples? Will two examples of attacks by Golden Retrievers convince you that they are the most dangerous breed?
The CDC study is flawed. Why don’t you get that? They relied on media reports for identification.
And again and again and again, that says nothing about whether Pomeranians are essentially bad dogs.
The CDC study is flawed. The CDC study is flawed. The CDC study is flawed. The CDC study is flawed. the CDC study is flawed. The CDC study is flawed. The CDC study is flawed. The CDC study is flawed.
So, you cannot provide even one example of such a question? Why not? It would be trivially easy to do so. Just copy and paste it.
It would depend entirely upon the attitude and manner of the dog. I try to evaluate a situation based on it’s merits rather than jump to conclusions about an entire class. Try it sometime. It works pretty well.
Huh? You suggested that Pit Bulls were bred to be dog aggressive and human aggression was selected out.
What a bullshit setup on your part. You asked for anecdotal evidence and I gave you just that. I have a feeling if I provided 1,000 such examples you’d have said out of 4+ million that is not enough.
I do get it. It is also about the only data point we have. They themselves admit its flaws yet STILL drew a conclusion. For all its flaws and supposed rejection by the CDC they keep it posted. For all its flaws the American Veterinary Medicine (or whatever their exact name is) saw fit to publish it along with some Pediatrics association and a study done in Belgium by their forensics labs seems to have very similar numbers.
What have you got? Nothing except hand waving.
You are a dishonest debater. You mentioned how you could train any dog to be mean. I agreed. Yet for all the “any dog can be bad” notion there sure seem to be a helluva lot more bad Pit Bull-types than evil Pomeranians.
You’ve got nothing. You’ve got nothing. You’ve got nothing. You’ve got nothing. You’ve got nothing. You’ve got nothing. You’ve got nothing. You’ve got nothing.
Again with the dishonesty. You asked about “breeding true”.
Nice dodge. The question is as posed.
Whack-a-Mole, are you at least capable of acknowledging that misidentification of breeds is really a significant problem when it comes to blaming a specific breed for deaths? And also that in the CDC study possible misidentification by the press and a far too small sample largely invalidate the findings people think are there, as the authors acknowledge? Did you even look at the link in this post?
By the way, anecdotes are of zero statistical value. ZERO. Got it?
100% honest I would probably be more excited if it was a pitbull. As long as either dog was showing no signs of aggression I would feel no danger. The pitbull will likely get some ear rubbings and back scritches. On the other hand I have had no negative experiences with pitties. I own a pit. Two of my friends own pits, my brother owns a pit mix, and my girlfriend grew up with a pit/lab mix. For us they are wonderful dogs.
On the other hand I can understand why people who have had negative experiences with them can feel so strongly. My sister when she was 2.5 was mauled by a Boxer. He latched on the top of her head and pretty much scalped her. She spent a while in the hospital and still has a large scar on the upper part of her forhead. The upside for her is that being a girl she is able to grow bangs to keep the scar hidden. About 24 years later my mom still has a strong reaction whenever she shes a Boxer and won’t go anywhere close to one. In addition brindle color dogs envoke a strong negative reaction from her. In a few years when circumstances permit I will be getting another Pitbull in addition to my current one Trogdor. Out of respect for my mother he will not be brindle.
If you read The Flying Dutchman’s link you will see on the first page at least 2 or 3 instances where the attacking dog was first incorrectly identified as a pitbull. When you are dealing with such small samples of DBRF the misclassification of a few dogs a year can lead to very skewed results. Especially when you are depending on the media to do the classification for you. Hopefully the CDC does a new study soon where they try to use something more scientific then media reports as a basis for their numbers.
I do acknowledge the limitations of the CDC study. It should be noted however that they distinguished between purebred and mixes and (sorry no cite but I ran across this earlier and cannot find it again) that the CDC worked closely with the Humane Society of the United States in compiling its report. I would hope that their methodology extended beyond, “well, we think its purebred”. Maybe that is what they did but I’d be shocked if their standards to denote purebred were so loose. Mixes I absolutely agree become very problematic to discern accurately.
As for too small a sample I don’t know what you can do about that. They looked at a 20 year timeframe of all deaths by dog. As it happens death by dogs are rather rare. Not sure how you could possibly expand to a larger sample. Indeed, if your sample is all deaths-by-dog isn’t the sample by definition large enough?
I am not sure how a better study can be performed as data is tricky to come by. So we are left with the CDC study so far. It should be read with caution but when we see a dramatic tilt in the numbers I do not believe they can be hand waved away and assume a better study will magically balance the numbers.
As for the pics I grant that “Pit Bull-type” dogs encompasses a variety of breeds. For my part I got it on my third try (Patterdale Terrier fooled me as did the Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog). Wouldn’t be surprised if those are included in “Pit Bull-types” anyway. I would also be very surprised to learn either of those breeds are remotely common. But of course I am a sample of one.
Good grief. :smack:
I agree and avoided offering anecdotal stories this entire thread until explicitly asked to provide some by another poster apparently for him to setup me up for a dumb and none too subtle ambush.
this thread has 136 replies and nearly 2k views. At this point I gotta say that everything relevant that could be said has been said. It comes to a point where all you can say is that reasonable people can disagree on many things. Im bowing out. I hope that people reading this thread impartially have gotten enough information from both sides to come to an infomed decision.
I’ve come to the conclusion that all dogs that look like a fighting breed should be neutered.
All dogs that have bitten once should have the incident recorded.
All dogs that have bitten twice should be put down.
All dogs that have caused human injuries requiring stitches and all dogs that have caused fatalities, dogs or human, should be put down.
This does not preclude penalties to dog owners.
Fair question. —Because of the gun thing. He was a nasty, aggressive, vindictive (and armed) neighbor with whom my friends had to continue to live. (duplex) I believe in most places that solution would be appropriate and viable but here, not so much.
Thank you.
Exactly. Extrapolating breed-wide generalities from such a tiny number is simply not statistically useful. Banning a breed based on such non-useful use of statistics would therefore not be valid.
Ah, I see. Sorry about that, then.
Is it? I am not sure but admit I do not know.
While death-by-dog may be rare if you look at all that occur and determine that one breed (for the sake of argument…just getting to the validity of the numbers) is responsible for 60% of all deaths is that not noteworthy?
Granted death-by-dog is waaaay low on the totem pole of issues we need to be concerned with. However, while deaths are very low dog bites are very common…some 4+ million per year. I do not think it is inappropriate to assume that a breed most responsible for killing a human would also be high on the list of dog bites.
I really do think that lots of dog bites will occur from smaller dogs. No stats, just lots of time spent around dogs. Those that have snapped at me are far and away the little ones. That said a small dog causes minimal damage when it bites. Not fun sure but generally not too big a deal. When a GSD or Doberman bites it is a whole other level of damage. If they maul you the damage can be severe. The idea of a Pomeranian mauling me is laughable.
So, to me, when thinking on these dogs it is akin to driving a car versus driving a big-rig. Driving a car is relatively easy and we let most anybody do it with a modicum of training. Driving a big-rig demands further training and demonstration of competence. So, a Pomeranian is a car and a Doberman is a big-rig. Handing people something so potentially dangerous without more than “can you write a check” seems absurd.
For my part I have been raised with GSDs my whole life. I have learned to respect and handle the dog well. I am fully aware they are potentially dangerous and make damn certain they are properly socialized. All to date have been model canine citizens. Unfortunately not all people bother to be so careful.