Pitbulls

Great Debates
561

One small example of mislabelling, albeit not in fatal attacks (those dogs are rare and killed quickly, and without any DNA confirmation) was provided in post#337, specifically with a link to this article. Half the dogs labelled by the shelter experts as “Pit” had no Pit in them and only one was majority Pit. Bottom line in larger studies looking at more than just Pits:

It was somewhat entertaining, in a sad sort of way, to read the shelter official, who had a kill all that he labelled as Pit policy, state that he just didn’t believe DNA testing was as reliable as his say so.

Another study documenting how poor even expert visual ID can be:

FWIW, the current Wikipedia article is full of examples in which media reports were “Pit Bull” but other reports said that the dog was a brindle bluedog or the media saying “Pit Bull” and the Animal Control saying mixed brreds with some possible Pit “influence” in there somewhere, a Cane Corso that was called Pit Bull by the media … so on.

Here’s another fun poster that illustrates how hard ID is.

562

That poster reminds me of why I am never going to spend the money to test my dogs.

In the middle of writing this I went ahead and googled and my thoughts are backed by what I found: the tests are crap. I wish they weren’t.

I’m not disagreeing at all with your point, just the garbage DNA testing.

And I think that if cougar is going to remain in fear, what he needs to do (and I’m serious about this!) is expand his horizons and just recognize that what he is really talking about are medium to large breed dogs that are powerful being dangerous. Because that is the truer statement.

But I just realized that of course you have to pick a breed because no one is going to support banning all large powerful dogs.

Well, I tried.

563

[/FONT][/COLOR]Firstly, that’s completely not what I asked for. I asked for cites of cases where dogs involved in a fatal attack were incorrectly identified as ‘pit bull-type’ when they were not, in fact, pit bull-type. Reason I ask is that I surmise that in a fatal attack, this isn’t a case of trying to identify one dog type out of dozens; the dog in question is known and specific. One would assume that the owner(s) would probably know what type of dog they have, and/or some canine professional would be involved in the identification. No cite of a dog involved in chewing someone to death being wrongly accused of being a pit bull-type? Especially want to see that cite of a golden retriever being mis-identified.

The study you posted is essentially one big steaming pile of doggie poo. The survey is specifically aimed at identifying American Pit Bull Terriers, not ‘pit bull-types’, as noted in the summary (“The American Pit Bull Terrier can only be identified by those individuals who own and attend APBT conformation events”).

The study claims that ‘30%’ of participants mis-identified boxers as American Pit Bull Terrier, 63% misidentified a Blue Blood Bluedog, etc. However, identification was done based on….a photograph. The photographs used have not been made available. My guess is that when a dog kills someone, identification of the dog is based on….the actual dog, not a photograph. More importantly, almost 85% of the participants had ‘general, little, or no experience’ with dogs, and – another damning point – the paper does not tell us the identification capability of the canine professionals. Unless dogs involved in fatal attacks are being identified by some Joe Blow off the street, the study is meaningless.

The study says that 74.1% of all respondents correctly identified the American Pit Bull Terrier as such, even though almost 85% of the respondents had ‘general, little, or no’ experience with dogs. Again, no breakdown given of the ability of canine professionals to correctly identify a pit bull-type as a pit bull-type.

But most daming of all…was the study done by a canine professional? Er, no, it was done by a…microbiologist. Why in the world would a microbiologist be doing a study on canine identification? Maybe because said microbiologist owns a pit bull kennel for breeding American Pit Bull Terriers, and his main objective is ‘saving the breed’? Hardly an objective bystander to the issue.

So, come on – page after page of how dogs involved in fatal attacks are ‘constantly mis-identified’, but no body can point to even one such case?

I have two kids. We have a dog. I suspect we’ll have dogs for as long as my wife and I are alive. We won’t be getting a pit bull anytime soon.

564

Try to be helpful to some people … :rolleyes: (FWIW, I’ve read the claim about Goldens misidentified made here and elsewhere and also roll my eyes … having some Golden mixed in with other breeds, maybe.)

Honestly I do not care if you accept the fact that half of the dogs labeled for execution for the crime of being Pit Bull that were tested turned out to have no Pit Bull in them at all or not … or what you would accept as “pit bull-type.” Not sure what that means and don’t care.

I am not in the business of recommending any breed of dog to anyone. Have a dog or don’t. Pros and cons to every dog that make each one a better or less good fit for every circumstance. Strong dogs have pros and cons and little yappy ones do. Rescue dogs have pros and cons and purebreds do. Whatever dog(s) you have with your kids I am sure you will be a responsible owner, training/socializing the dog well, understanding its behavior and signals and that it is not a person, training your children how to handle the dog and how to have friends interact with it, and supervising appropriately. Since you will do those things the risk of dog ownership in your household is likely extremely small no matter what breed you have, even if one breed or another fits your family’s needs and desires better.

Like I’ve said before in this thread, my breed of choice, for my family (four kids but soon only one left in the house), is and has been for a while now rescue greyhounds, but they are not for every circumstance any more than Pits or Skye Terriers or Labs or Goldens are. Dogs are not one size fits all.

Pits are strong. Tempermentally they are NOT particularly human aggressive (despite the tautologic ad hominem that the testing that shows they are tempermentally not aggressive is “biased” because the group that tested them then concluded that that they are not aggressive). The risk of being killed by a dog, any dog, is a very very very small non-zero number. We don’t really know what that number is as we rely on media reports for the n. Get a smaller dog and that risk likely becomes very very very very (that’s one extra very) small but the risk of your child sustaining a less severe bite goes up quite a bit. That risk is not so small. Still the risks of either in a household that does all those responsible owner things is small enough that other factors will probably drive the decision of what dog to own.

Pits are loyal and funny and goofy. They need lots of exercise and can never be trusted around other dogs. They need to be properly socialized and trained. An owner who is not willing to spend that significant time and energy investment is well advised to not own a dog of that breed.

Pits are over-represented in lower SES households and are over-represented as neglected and abused dogs. Dogs that look vaguely Pittish are sold as Pits because some segment of the population specifically wants dogs that have that image associated with them. Pits are over-represented as dogs encouraged by neglectful owners to be aggressive. Pits are also likely over-represented in media reports of dog attacks.

There is a reason that all those professional organizations’ approaches to dog bites (including but not restricted to fatal ones) are focused on education and responsible ownership, and that when they do discuss breed bans it is to specifically comment against them.

There is a reason that breed specific bans have not worked to reduce dogbite fatalities anywhere they have been implemented and why they have been associated with an increase in serious bite rates at least as much as they have been associated with a reduction in them.

There is a reason that arguments against Pits fall back on scary anecdotes, misuse of statistics, and tactics like calling them “land sharks.”

And that reason is not that the professional organizations are all full of nutters, that the data showing BSL do not work is wrong, or the strength of the argument from the fearmongering Pit Bull haters.

565

Go to any L.A. Shelter and its pretty much (to the naked eye) pit pit pit pit pit pit pit Chihuahua Chihuahua pit pit pit.

If it was explained earlier I missed it can you explain why BSL Is associated with an increase in serious dog bites?

566

There is a finite amount of resources and monies that get put into animal control. If those resources are diverted to the ineffective approach that is BSL then there is less or none left for efforts that target problem owners, problem dogs based on past behaviors, education efforts, programs that encourage neutering, etc.

Masachusetts recently passed a new model animal control legislation, eliminating BSLs and refocusing on more important targets:

Focusing on the wrong target distracts from effective efforts on the right target. It will be of interest to see what happens to serious dog bite rates in MA over the next decade.

567

:rolleyes:

I would be a heck of a lot more willing to accept that if you could provide a cite for dogs involved in fatal bite incidents being repeatedly mis-identified as pit bulls.

So far I don’t even recall one such cite; instead all I get are links to sites with pictures of 20 dogs, saying ‘see how hard it is to identify the pit bull?’.

Which of course is completely not the point - you’re not trying to figure out which of a dozen dogs chosen because they kinda sorta look alike is a pit bull; it’s identifiying the specific dog that just chewed someone to death as a pit bull or not. Completely, totally different.

The study linked above is garbage, due to the points raised.

Could you link the cite for the ‘50% of dogs to be put down because they were pit bulls had no pit bull in them at all’ claim?

568

Why yes, I could. And did.

The article was a small n to be sure. And since clicking is too much to ask of you:

You obviously were also unable to read of the several cites offered of dogs identified as “Pit” in fatal attacks that were not, that were also offered up in my post. I can’t help if you refuse or cannot read. How many of the other dogs were true Pits, meaning mostly one of the Pit breeds by DNA heritage? I don’t know. You don’t know. They were however apparently “Pit Bull-type.”

“Pit Bull-type” could and can mean anything. What I’ve not seen is any evidence that “Pit Bull” as used by the media in reporting dog attacks, means anything other than a catch-all for “muscular dog with a largish head who did something scary.” If you have evidence that most of these dogs were reliably identified, such as by pedigreed papers or DNA swabs, then feel free to step up with it. If you have evidence that the vast majority of muscular mixed breed dogs that the average animal control officer labels as Pit Bull are in fact, by DNA testing, majority Pit Bull, please offer it up.

Which again, is imaterial to me. Personally I don’t care if all the dogs labelled as Pits actually were other muscular breed or mixed breed dogs or majority DNA of “Pit Bull” breed descent. You do care so I attempted to link you to the evidence such as it is. If that evidence does not meet your requirements that’s nice. And sorry I bothered.

A dog that bites need to be put down and I do not care if it is a Pit or not. An owner that abuses or neglects a dog needs to punished, whatever the breed. An owner that encourages aggression in a dog needs to be disciplined whatever the breed. Dogs, especially male dogs, especially of the larger and more muscular breeds should be neutered, whatever the breed. All owners need to take the responsibility of dog ownership seriously, whatever the breed. BSLs do no good and may do harm.

569

4th of July cookout, someone lets the family pit bull out, and 5 people, all adults, are mauled. Some seriously. Mauling continues until police arrive,** pepper spray dog (no effect) then shoot it once - again zero effect - then shoot it again, and kill it**.

But you will never read about heroic police actions shootings of the owners pit bull, that saved many lives (in this case, at least 5), from the pro Pit Bull org called the “National Canine Research Council”, or its founder, Karen Delise, whose only reference to police interactions and pit bulls is the “police ride into town with both guns blazing at anything that resembles a pit bull”, in her book, “the pit bull placebo”.

What other family pet type of dog, mauls 5 adults, and continues mauling, even after police fire multiple point blank shots & pepper spray, stopping only after a final police fatal gunshot gives the pit bull a much needed dirt nap?

“the dog’s owner told NBC 10 that the owner was shocked when he learned of the attack, but was also mourning the loss of a family pet the owner says wasn’t a problem until Thursday.”

I welcome any recent ( say, this decade) case of any other type of dog causing this type of mayhem and continuing its prolonged multiple adult mauling, even after being shot by police.

I have cited several in the past month, exclusive to pit bulls.

Imagine the actual pit bull fatal mauling count, if so many were not stopped dead in their tracks by police gunfire. And look at how many were the owners/ owners family.

PS - shhh. do not tell Karen Delise and the NCRC about these weekly pit owners lives saved by police.

Also, this weekend, an Austin TX cop had to shoot a leashed pit bull that a 16 yr old girl waltzed into a Petco with, as it was mauling a smaller dog to death. Google it, and look at the overwhelming comments from pit bull deniers, slamming the police for shooting yet another pit bull in Austin. Yet not one, says one word, about the smaller dogs right to life.

This week, residents of Branson voted overwhelming 2/3rds (66%, same as Miami Dade) to ban pit bulls, and a pit bull ban just passed in Dover.

570

I would out someone who buys a pit bull with babies around in the same category as someone who would leave a toddler alone at the top of stairs, on a skateboard or treehouse alone.

571

Yes people often do easy but stupid things when they feel the need to do something rather than think and do something that would actually be a rational and effective response.

I would put anyone who leaves any dog undersupervised with babies around in the same grouping. From Bull Mastiff to chihuahua. Kids under 4 and dogs is always equals some risk.

572

Then you are incapable of actually understanding the risks involved, since (for example) at least a quarter of serious injuries to children from stairs happen when they’re being carried by their parents–not “alone”.

There is no way, with the data as it currently exists, to spin mere pit bull ownership as some uniquely and unprecedentedly dangerous thing. They are simply not that dangerous on a per capita basis–full stop.

On a per-item basis, something as simple and mundane as “the family car” is four times as deadly to children as all dogs put together.

573

This is entirely true. **cougar **keeps making snide comments about little terriers having the worst temperament–but a little terrier can do a hell of a number on a child its own size, and they do quite frequently looking at the number of non-fatal bites out there perpetrated by the lapdog set.

There is no substitute for responsible ownership and breeding. The entire conceit that pit bulls are somehow uniquely dangerous is just a heavy-handed way to try to pretend that the problem is not the people involved.

574

Today in Indy, a 12 yr old boy is in critical condition, because his mothers boyfriends pit bull, went pit bull, and commenced mauling him as the owner was placing it in it crate.
The mauling only stopped, when a neighbor shot and killed it. But that was only after efforts by another neighbor to stab it to death, didn’t faze the land shark.

http://www.jconline.com/viewart/20130705/NEWS01/307050039/Critical-injuries-Indy-child-12-neighbor-kills-pit-bull-update-

Looks like police don’t have a patent on shooting pit bulls to save the owners lives.

Again, this would have been a fatal attack, if not for a rudely placed bullet.

And I assure you , the pit bull deniers will be out in full force, condemning the neighbors who stabbed and shot the pit bull.

Don’t think so?

Not so surprisingly, there word today of yet another police action shooting of a pit bull to save a mans life in Nashua, NH. The story and its comments section are full of pit bull deniers slamming the police for using deadly force.

http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20130629/NEWS01/130629143/-1/NEWHAMPSHIRE03

Its getting very close to being a daily event - a pit bull being shot to save a persons life.

Wonder if Karen Delise will issue a correction to her book " the pit bull placebo"? Maybe she can make a point to correct this on the NCRC National Canine Research Council.

Its the official position of Karen and the NCRC that “police ride into town with both guns blazing at anything that resembles a pit bull”. The NCRC is the official organization for pit bull deniers to get info, to spread right after the daily maulings.

I will bet $1000 the man being mauled, didn’t object to the police using deadly force right from the start.

Update to the Rhode Island pit bull that mauled 5 adults this week, stopped only by multiple police gun shots:

The state of RI just this week, past a law than bans BSl - breed specific legislation. The ink wasn’t even dry on this new law.

Just like Ohio, when they lifted their state wide declaration the pit bulls were viscious by default - within hours, the family pit bull in Toledo killed 2 yr old Makayla Darnell.
The Toledo Blade newspaper, long recognized as pro pit bull, had a front page report when this girl was killed, - because at that time the breed was unknown. They chastised readers comments to jumping to the conclusion that it was a pit bull. When it was later confirmed to be a pit bull, the Blade deleted the article and all comments, and refused to update the story with the breed identified.

Someone just a few posts up, referenced a quote from the Toledo Blade. You might as well reference a quote from the book " pit bull placebo".

By the way, Ohio ended the year with 3 of 4 fatal attacks being by pit bulls. 75%.

575

Four whole deaths? Land sakes alive, we’d better do SOMETHING ANYTHING about this gigantic menace, if it gets to be any worse it might be as insignificant a cause of deaths as terrorist attacks.

576

So cougar how is it that you never really answered my question? Why do you continue to post this stuff? Who are you hoping to convince? Or are you just venting your emotions?

And you have to realize I hope that posting stories about pitbull’s or any dog attacking anybody doesn’t mean anything? Dogs hurt people. Stories are written. And you have absolutely no idea what the truth is about the dog the owner the circumstances. You want to make it about genetics, and nothing you post proves that pitbulls are inherently anything at all. If you really wish to be persuasive about the idea that pit bulls are genetically inclined to be vicious without warning, You need to bring the science, not the hysterical headlines. When you can do that, you might have a point.

577

That’s 3 fatal pit attacks in one state (Ohio) in one year (2012)

If the remaining 49 states followed Ohio’s lead, there would be 150 fatal pit attacks per year.

terrorists attacks in the USA are declining, since 911.

Pit attacks are rising, on average, every year.

In fact, pit attacks have surpassed terrorists attacks. If just counting limb amputations, even with Boston factored, the 4 legged terrorists dwarf the 2 legged terrorists.

The USA has banned drop-side cribs, window blinds, and Tylenol, when they each killed far fewer humans than pit bulls. Ditto for the Chrysler gas tanks of current, as noted in my link above to Dog Bite Atty Ken Phillips, in his article that said if we are recalling Chrysler’s despite 30 deaths, we should recall pit bulls who have had 32 deaths in half as many years.

578

I find it hard to believe you are watching your dog and toddler every second she is near a dog. I do I agree there is always a risk but why would somebody want to risk knowing that the risk statistically is so much higher?
If I knew that one breeder of cats has a very high risk of scratching people and another one does not why would I choose the one that has the high incident of scratching? After all my friend has one and he didn’t scratch

579

I guess you wouldn’t demand kids to wear seat belts because most cars don’t get into crashes, I wouldn’ buy a dog that has a higher risk of attacks,

580

Actually when my kids were toddlers one of us was watching them all the time they were not asleep. You don’t have kids, do you?

The rest of this is the same Pit-haters repeating the same lines that are as fatuous now as they were before; repeating the same responses would be an exercise in futility that I will not bother engaging in.