You’re right, the n=6 is lolsamplesizelol small. And three out of six dogs, on a test with an accuracy of around 85%? Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it. Especially when you read about how wildly divergent the resultscan be…even with the same dog:
However - and perhaps I’ve missed some link somewhere in this thread - but what I’m asking for is a cite that dogs involved in fatal bite attacks are routinely mis-identified as pit-pull types. Apologies if I missed the cite, but I don’t recall seeing even one such cite. Dogs being mis-identified as pit bulls is irrelevent to this discussion, which is specific to ‘dogs that bite people to death’ and how often they are are are not pit pull-type dogs. It’s not rocket science.
The CDC has completely abandoned the idea of sorting dog bites by breed because it’s so unreliable. That was on like the first page. Is that not what you’re looking for?
Also, what does “pit-bull type” even mean? Either there’s something genetically in the pit bull* lineage that makes these dogs more aggressive, or there isn’t. Period. The burden of proof is on the pit-bull haters to show such a thing exists.
If the hypothesis here is that dogs that look like pit-bulls are disproportionately owned by irresponsible people and therefore you feel more cautious around such a dog if you encounter it on the street or something, fine. Sure. No one disagrees that’s a prudent move. If you say dogs that look like pit-bulls are disproportionately owned by irresponsible people and therefore more likely to be involved in dog bites, ok. But if you say pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds of dogs, inherently and this risk exists no matter how the dog is raised, you are saying this breed of dog has a genetic predisposition to violence.
These dogs were beloved family members for generations, and have only recently become the thug dog du jour. Scientifically, the idea that they would have changed in such a short period of time is implausible. The idea that such a change could effect several breeds, and also dogs that resemble those breeds is just ridiculous. If that’s the claim being made, then, again, prove it. Show that these dogs have genetic similarities, or their pedigrees indicate such. But no one can do that. That’s why I keep telling cougar that without genetic testing or pedigrees, all her news stories are just static. There is no mechanism by which “pit-bul like” dogs would be more dangerous, unless it’s due to the way such dogs are raised. Which would mean that dogs NOT raised in such a way would be safe. That’s what I (and others) are saying, and that’s what cougar (and a few others) disagree with, and that’s why they’re wrong.
*and pit bull isn’t really a breed so this whole thing makes even less sense.
[QUOTE=DragonAsh but what I’m asking for is a cite that dogs involved in fatal bite attacks are routinely mis-identified as pit-pull types. Apologies if I missed the cite, but I don’t recall seeing even one such cite. Dogs being mis-identified as pit bulls is irrelevent to this discussion, which is specific to ‘dogs that bite people to death’ and how often they are are are not pit pull-type dogs. It’s not rocket science. [/SIZE]
[/FONT]
[/QUOTE]
Hell, I even think there’s a nugget of truth in the idea of blaming “pit-bull type dogs”. You figure, Pits and Staffordshires have been bred for approximately ever to lower their unprovoked human aggression and increase their train-ability (two absolutely key items for a fighting dog when dogfights were a legitimate thing, and two absolutely key items for a guard dog period).
Given their current status as tough-guy-dog of the decade, and the resultant backyard breeding, I would expect to see two things:
A proliferation of unpapered pit-types being bred for more aggression/showy scariness in general
A proliferation, likewise, of pit mixes affecting the delicate temperament that’s been bred in to pits–“aggressive, but towards other dogs” is a pretty delicate bit of internal chemistry. Given how often one sees small children getting non-hospitalize-able bites from terrier types (since THEY are bred to “attack that small fast-moving thing”, generally)…
And a corollary:
Dogs produced that fit into the above two categories will be MUCH more common (due to lower cost) than standards-compliant Pits.
So one thing seems like it might be reasonable to presume here–the fact that there’s such a thing as a “pit bull-type mutt” that’s in all likelihood much more prevalent than the purebred papered type increases the risk of that particular phenotype over purebred and well-bred Pits and Staffordshires.
Incidentally, this (if true) would also actually explain how the rise of the pit as a popular tough-guy dog also caused a disproportionate rise in attacks attributable to a pit-bull phenotype dog, which drum cougar’s been beating for the last few pages.
Cougar, by the by, are you ever planning on actually addressing the huge, glaring problem I pointed out with the one study you posted? I’m going to ignore further ones from you until you acknowledge and/or address the huge flaw in the Philly Children’s Hospital study.
Or, you know, maybe something closer to what Zeriel said?
In any event, I’m responding to the claim that dogs involved in fatal attacks are routinely mis-identified as pits. I’ve -repeatedly- asked for a cite or study on this - a cite for an actual fatality where the dog that chewed the person to death was wrogly identified as a pit. So far, a big fat ZERO.
Perhaps I missed a cite, but I’m not quite sure that’s what the CDC says - by my reading, they’re just sayingthat they don’t know how many dogs there are of each breed, not that determining the identity or breed is unreliable.
Slightly off-topic, but I find it interesting that pit bull advocates claim that due to the popularity of pits, the number of bites & fatalities from pits are just a function of having so many pits out there. And yet they complain about ‘wide-spread media bias’ and the like…but wouldn’t media bias about these ‘killer pit bulls’ -lower- their popularity? We’re supposed to believe that the general public is listening to these vicious rumors about these ‘killer land sharks’ from the biased media, then going out and buying them? Doesn’t make sense.
There is little to add to this thread at this point but imagining that perhaps DragonAsh is actually curious about an answer I’ll stab at it:
Those who know the dogs of the actual breeds like them and ignore and/or roll eyes at the media reports and hater hysteria. Many professionals recommend the breeds to those for whom the dog would be one good choice. That segment is not diminished by idiotic media hype much.
The bad-ass image increases the Pit Bull-type mutts’ (think of them as cheap knock-off Pit Bulls, not the same quality but looks sort of like the real thing) popularity among certain demographics - unfortunately often including some demographics that do not make the best fit for actually owning this particular sort of dog (and in some cases, any dog). People less likely to have a pet neutered, people less likely to be able or sometimes willing to provide adequate supervision of the animal, occassionally people who encourage aggression or who neglect or even abuse the animals.
Somehow I doubt this will “make sense” to DragonAsh but what the heck.
So if there’s in increase in pit bull-type mutts, often owned by ‘demographics’ that are ill-suited to owning that type of dog, not neutering, not adequately supervising or training, sometimes encouraging aggression, sometimes prone to neglect an abuse…
…what do you think that will do to the number of dog bites and fatalities caused by said pit bull-types?
Of course there is a rise in serious bites and even the extremely rare fatalities caused by the “knock-off Pit Bull-type” due to that selection bias of unneutered male dogs, inadequately supervised … etc.
And does that reflect something intrinsic to the breed?
Does it in any way inform about the behavior of a well socialized well trained well supervised neutered etc. … dog of the breed?
Does demonizing the breed help reduce that outcome?
Why aren’t unsocialized and/or unneutered golden retrievers killing a human every 11 days? Zero this year. Or even Rottweilers - none this year. Shouldn’t they at least match the % based on their population? Why have some of the fatal pit attacks happened, even when the pit bull was neutered/ spayed? In most cases, their status (spay / neuter) isn’t reported, but there have been some, where it was reported as being fixed, albeit a minority.
Pit demonized themselves, by being responsible for 100% of the 10 fatals, in the first 4 months of 2013, and 90% of the fatals half way thru the year.
Ditto for human amputations, and large livestock fatals.
You believe that in the current environment, in which Pits are the devil dog du jour, that there will be a number of Goldens that are unsocialized and/or unneutered at least matched to the % based on their population.
If you cannot see the reason why that would not be true then I can not help much. Sorry.
Pitts are like any dogs. It’s all how you train and raise them. All dogs bite, all dogs growl, dogs are dogs. Pitts are loving dogs and get more hate than love all because of dumb people who fight their dogs with other dogs or abuse them. It’s the owner that makes a dog so scared or upset all the time. If you give a dog lots of love and raise it properly and dont abuse or use them as fighting dogs, they will love you more and more each day and stay by your side no matter the circumstance.
And of course, Pits are UNIQUELY dangerous among medium-sized dogs, and NO OTHER DOG BREED could EVER possibly be the tough guy dog du jour and suffer from similar problems if badly- and over-bred and sold in massive numbers to people who WANT a vicious dog.
Breed perceptions change faster than breeds. Hell, the standard poodle was classified as a war dog by the US Army in World War II–and anyone who’s crossed a standard poodle is well aware of why.
How many owners of pit bulls said the same thing…and then their dog attacked ? I will keep repeating my question, knowing the stats are highest for pit bulls , why would someone choose tht breed with children.
and what you are failing to comprehend, is that there are many, many documented and verified cases of pits that were family pets for over a decade, by model families that would make Ward and June Beaver envious, that suddenly snapped and killed a family member.
Such as the PA family whose pit of 10+ yrs, sitting on the sofa, suddenly grabbed their 10 yr old son and gripped his neck - while the family was in the room, and killed him. Savannah Gragg, age 9, of Kokomo, in 2010, also same situation, clean cut suburban family, fenced yard - no chain - the family pet of 10 years suddenly gripped Savannah by the throat, killing her, as her grandmother sat 10 feet away. Mike Cook, Tuscon, middle aged man, virtually every friend and neighbor said he loved his pit bull more than life itself, until one day in 2011, when it ripped his arms and legs off, killing him. Or Joseph Hines of Burnettsville, IN - who neighbors and friends described as an elderly man who loved his pit bull, was always seen walking him, letting neighbor kids play with it, for many year…then one day in 2011 it went for his jugular and killed him.
You would have a point if all, or even a majority, of the pit fatals, were carried out by gang bangers who had a history of dog fighting and/or criminal activities, using gun powder fed, inbred mongrels. The 83 yr old Greenwood, IN woman whose pit bull of 13 yrs, that tore her arms off, - and countless others, indicates an absolute failure to comprehend…unless your are a US Appellate or Supreme Court judge.
I would literally plaster 10 pages on this forum with verbatim references with hyperlink cites to prove this, as I have in my other rebuttals, but pit defenders will scream foul to the mod’s - and I have been told to stop the overwhelming ( as noted by others) evidence.
18 Appellate & Supreme courts across the United States have recognized the dangerousness of the pit bull breed for over 25-years. The debate you and I and Zeriel are having here, has already been wrangled in court. The verdict is in.
Let me make this perfectly clear: The Ward and June Beaver’s that are being killed every month by their family pit bull, did not own “the devil dog du jour” as you describe them. In fact, many of the now deceased Beavers of America, described their pits as “nanny dogs” in older Facebook posts.
The mother of all of these examples, were Darla and Greg Napora, who opted to relocate from Yakima, WA after it banned pit bulls, to Pacifica, CA, to prove it was all in how you raised them. “Ban the deed, not the owners”. They belonged to, and were very vocal members of, BADRAP - the Bay Area pit bull org whose goal is to dispel the BAD RAP given pit bulls. Their pit bull, that they slept with for many years, disemboweled Darla, and her unborn baby. Greg still refused to blame his pet, and actually had the pit bull buried in the same casket as his wife, Darla.
(PS - if “education” of pit owners would prevent these tragedies, why didn’t BADRAP educate members Darla and Greg)?
a) this proves that pit bull-type owners are (exponentially) more likely to be crappy dog owners, in which case said dogs are likely to be (exponentially) more dangerous, in which case, yes, I will continue to give you and your crappy dog a wide berth, including not letting my kids play at your house, or
b) you need to explain why unsupervised, poorly trained, neglected Yorkshire Terriers and Golden Retrievers aren’t likewise killing 20-30 kids a year.
I’d guess that they are. If you can come up with a way to accurately determine which breeds are represented in a mutt, you’d probably find that labs are represented more than any other. Of course, there is no way to prove this one way or another, which is why this is a stupid conversation.
You’d be guessing wrong. Of the fatal pit bull attacks so far in 2013, in every case, they have both the dog, and the owner.
In each case, Animal Control, Police, and the owners, have indicated they were pit bulls.
If they were labs, would the owners have said so, to preserve the misunderstood, badrap, pit bulls?
In the case of the pit bull that ripped a babys leg off, while the dad was holding the baby, the mother is on Facebook begging people not to judge pit bulls based on this single fluke.
Quoting Nixon, “I want to make this perfectly cleeeeeear.” No Lab has killed a person in 2013.