Pitbulls

[pbbth]

We have a french bulldog. She is on the small side for a frenchie, only about 20 lbs or so, and she has their characteristic big ears and goofy grin. But she is also brindled, which means once a month or so when I am walking her someone points at her, yells, “Pitbull!” and moves away as fast as they can. Obviously all dogs can bite and it is important to be cautious and all, but it is ridiculous to think she is a pitbull.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Justin_Bailey

Even the vets don’t know without a full DNA test (and even then, IIRC, the accuracy of these tests aren’t always perfect). My dog is a “pit bull” but she also has characteristics of a Boxer and a German Shepherd and possibly something else. On her adoption papers/dog license, she’s listed as a Boxer. But really, she’s a mutt.

And that’s the thing. There are definitely dogs with a genetic predisposition to violence, and a disproportionate number of those dogs are pit bulls. I think folks who deny that are just flat-out wrong. But there’s definitely not a one-to-one correspondence between violent dogs and pit bulls in either direction.

[babygoat666]

@esmeralda2

http://news.msn.com/us/4-pit-bulls-blamed-for-63-year-old-joggers-death

Why do people say pitbulls are nice dogs? Everytime something like this happens, pitbull owners loudly protest what good dogs they are. Gentle, affectionate, etc. How can they say that?

Easily. I have fostered several rescued pit bulls and pit bull mix breeds in my house for extended periods of time. Not a single one showed signs of aggression, even the one with cigarette burns on his legs. My lab wanted to romp them all to death, and they all wanted to snuggle with me or my wife.

I would bet you money that the dogs in question were either poorly trained guard dogs, or they were tortured/had the shit beaten out of them, or both.

[Fiveyearlurker]

In the 80s it was Dobermans, and in the 90s it was Rottweilers, and now it’s pitbulls. In all cases they are physically imposing looking dogs that have to potential to make the owner look and feel tough. So, owners with a desire to look and feel tough flock to the breed, train the dog to be tough and mean to keep up this image, and then the breed itself gets maligned.

[DrFidelius]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

And that’s the thing. There are definitely dogs with a genetic predisposition to violence, and a disproportionate number of those dogs are pit bulls. I think folks who deny that are just flat-out wrong. But there’s definitely not a one-to-one correspondence between violent dogs and pit bulls in either direction.

I must disagree. A “disproportionate number of dogs” who have a breed propensity to violence are in the spitz family (from pomeranians up to akitas, including sled dogs), not terriers.

[Telemark]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

There are definitely dogs with a genetic predisposition to violence, and a disproportionate number of those dogs are pit bulls. I think folks who deny that are just flat-out wrong.

These statements aren’t supported by the evidence.

[Magiver]

@crucible

Most pits will never attack a person, but the facts are that pits are more likely to attack people than other breeds. Far more likely, in fact.

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/6120/bites/dogbiterisk.html

32% of reported dog bites are by pits and mixed breed pits. Half of the fatalities.

It’s the fatalities side of the coin that is relevant. It’s not just that a pit bull attacks someone, it’s the nature of the attack and pit bulls are more likely to kill than other dogs.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Telemark

These statements aren’t supported by the evidence.

As already cited in this thread, the CDC says:

@CDC

the dataindicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogsaccounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United Statesbetween 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely thatthey accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in theUnited States during that same period and, thus, thereappears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.

This does not prove that there is a genetic predisposition toward violence in some dogs, but if you’re going to dispute that, you’ve got a tough row to hoe. Is that what you’re disputing?

[Zeriel]

@Magiver

It’s the fatalities side of the coin that is relevant. It’s not just that a pit bull attacks someone, it’s the nature of the attack and pit bulls are more likely to kill than other dogs.

Cite? I was under the impression that wasn’t actually the case the last time it was studied.

[Furious_Marmot]

@esmeralda2

…I’ve been in countries where there are feral dogs, dogs that hang out in groups. They do not run out and attack people who pass by.

You haven’t been to Moscow or Mumbai, then.

Moscow Plagued by Packs of Wild Dogs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/world/asia/india-stray-dogs-are-a-menace.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Chronos]

How do they define “pit bull-type”? Because in practice, that term is usually used to mean “Scary-looking dog that attacked me, or that I thought might attack me”. And yes, the category of “Scary-looking dog that I thought might attack me” is in fact responsible for a disproportionate number of attacks, but I don’t think that really indicates anything.

[Telemark]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

As already cited in this thread, the CDC says:

Serious question, is this the CDC report that they later recanted?

[DrDeth]

Girl, you did *not *just go there!:eek:

Pit Bulls are actually rather nice dogs, unless raised to be fighters. True, if a Pit Bull does bite you, it’s way more dangerous than a Chihuahua.

However, here’s what I support: No Pit Bull breeding. No one can breed Pit Bulls without a special permit. Nor can anyone own a Pit Bull over 6 months old that has not been neutered (unless they have that permit). No one can own more than 6 Pit Bulls.

Now, before dudes jump all over me because there’s no solid definition of a what a “Pit bull” is (most of what are seen are mixes), I would apply this to all animals of the species Canis lupus familiaris. Yes, in other words, no one gets to breed any dog unless they have a permit.

The shelters are full of wonderfull doggies just wanting a home. When they are empty, we can change this.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@Telemark

Serious question, is this the CDC report that they later recanted?

It must be, since the CDC stopped tracking dog bites by breed after that report.

I have to laugh any time someone trots that study out in every. single. pitbull thread.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Telemark

Serious question, is this the CDC report that they later recanted?

You tell me. I’ve never seen any sign of that recanting, but maybe they did. Absent evidence that they did, though, I’ll go by it, especially since it makes sense (dogs can be bred for certain behavioral characteristics, and some people breed pit bulls for a propensity to violence, and some of those breeders aren’t good enough or smart enough or discriminating enough to breed for a propensity for violence toward other dogs but not toward humans, and those specific breeders will increase the proportion of violent pit bulls in a way that no breeders do for golden retrievers).

[Sailboat]

@crucible

Most pits will never attack a person, but the facts are that pits are more likely to attack people than other breeds. Far more likely, in fact.

Uh…no. If it’s facts you want, the American Veterinary Medical Association AND the Centers for Disease Control are on record as saying that one cannot know what proportion of dog bites come from what breeds for a variety of reasons. This has been gone over ad nauseam here on the board and I’m sure you could find a cite if you were interested, but the longshot is: bite reporting is spotty and sensationalized; there exists no census of breeds in the US; and breed identification by victims, media and police is notoriously bad. Therefore we don’t know how many dogs exist of any breed nor how many bites happen, period, nor what breeds caused them. This is an absolute and unavoidable scientific fact: your numbers are made up, because they have to be made up, because reputable scientists and veterinarians have said that accurate numbers do not exist and cannot be compiled.

@crucible

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/6120/bites/dogbiterisk.html

32% of reported dog bites are by pits and mixed breed pits.

The hell. That link (covered with authoritative-looking footnote numbers that are not matched to any actual footnotes, I notice) itself says “Between 1979 and 1998, pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were responsible for 76 out of 238, or 32% of all reported dog bites.”

If that report’s writer, you, or anyone on earth thinks that there were only 238 reported dog bites in 19 years, I have to ask, why is this even an issue? That would be medically insignificant in every sense.

I realize that numbers “look real,” but ask yourself what on earth would prompt anyone to believe 238 dog bites in 19 years is accurate.

[Magiver]

@DrDeth

Pit Bulls are actually rather nice dogs, unless raised to be fighters. True, if a Pit Bull does bite you, it’s way more dangerous than a Chihuahua.

are you suggesting there aren’t traits such as aggression that differ between breeds?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Sailboat

The hell. That link (covered with authoritative-looking footnote numbers that are not matched to any actual footnotes, I notice) itself says “Between 1979 and 1998, pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were responsible for 76 out of 238, or 32% of all reported dog bites.”

Actually, I notice that the footnotes are attached to actual footnotes. It looks like they left out important qualifiers, though: the cited reference apparently is for “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal
human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.”

[Sailboat]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

And that’s the thing. There are definitely dogs with a genetic predisposition to violence, and a disproportionate number of those dogs are pit bulls.

Not factually supported…and the burden of proof would be on you, since you assert that.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You tell me. I’ve never seen any sign of that recanting, but maybe they did.

“That study” is the infamous Sacks study.

Why don’t you go tho the damned Centers for Disease Control and take a look yourself? I’ve posted this in every pit bull thread…maybe you’ve been skipping those threads?

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html

Here’s where the CDC specifically recants the falsely-derived conclusions of the Sacks Study:

It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. 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.

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You tell me. I’ve never seen any sign of that recanting, but maybe they did. Absent evidence that they did, though, I’ll go by it, especially since it makes sense (dogs can be bred for certain behavioral characteristics, and some people breed pit bulls for a propensity to violence, and some of those breeders aren’t good enough or smart enough or discriminating enough to breed for a propensity for violence toward other dogs but not toward humans, and those specific breeders will increase the proportion of violent pit bulls in a way that no breeders do for golden retrievers).

It’s almost worthless. It’s based on unreliable breed identification, which is why the CDC doesn’t include breeds in it’s dog bite studies anymore.

Other difficulties:

@CDC

It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.

also…

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.