Good point. Note that some shelters are loath to adopt out "pit bulls’ as they don’t want them ending up in the wrong hands.
I’m not sure how common that is, to be honest. I’ve heard about liability concerns among shelters, but I’ve never seen an actual policy by a shelter of not adopting out pit bulls. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but when I worked for a shelter, I only heard about it thirdhand, never from the source. (We adopted them out freely).
People who are going to be terrible pit bull owners don’t tend to want to put their information on file with the local animal nuts anyway. 
I have been following these pit bull discussions as they pop up on the dope, because I honestly used to be one of those people who thought “Pits are bred to be killing machines and they will eat your CHILDREN!”
I have learned a lot since then, but am still confused on some points and am not sure exactly what the deal is with ‘pits’. But, I do know this…it seems a bit of a cop out to keep saying “well, we don’t know if this animal who did this is a pit bull! We don’t know the parents of the dog, so it is just laughable to try to claim it is a pit…”
I mean, at some point, we have agree on what we all are willing to call a ‘pit’ or ‘muscle dog’ or whateverthehell you wanna call it, and then discuss their aggression toward humans from there. If you aren’t willing to admit that pit bull is definable, then you can’t really say that all of these maulings AREN’T done by a pit bull. Since people are incapable of identifying a pit bull, perhaps there have been many MORE maulings by pits that haven’t been properly reported.
Yeah, I’m being a bit silly, but I’m making a point. I think the side that is trying to explain that ‘pits’ aren’t any more a threat to humans than any other dog should drop the ‘pits aren’t being identified correctly’ argument.
I don’t know anything about dogs but my understanding is that the accepted standard for pit bulls is hard for even trained vets to determine by visual inspection alone. I do not trust that a newspaper reporter is capable of accurately judging dog breeds especially in light of the fact that newspapers have demonstrated an unwillingness to report on attacks by non-pitbulls.
And nobody has satisfactorily demonstrated to me that pit bulls are innately any more aggressive than any other given breed.
I certainly agree that, as phrased, that can be demonstrated. The word has too many definitions to demonstrate it exactly like that, and the word “innately” is a real bitch, and you left out anything like “disproportionately” to allow for some super-sweet pit bulls and others with some serious mental damage.
Are you one of the people who thinks that the claim is inherently unfalsifiable, though? If you do think it’s falsifiable, would you suggest a study protocol that would satisfy you? Bonus points if it’s remotely feasible.
Yeah. Why are you stating the obvious? The entire debate is whether or not pit bulls are more aggressive than any other dogs. I am clearly right with you that this has not been satisfactorily demonstrated.
The thing is, we have to be willing to accept that scientific accuracy of what makes a dog a dog or a breed a breed is impossible. If we dive into it, we will get all kinds of different answers and overlap and special cases. We can’t discuss honestly the issue of whether or not ‘pit bulls’ are more aggressive or stronger or more evil, hateful, vengeful, lock jawed, psychotic than other dogs unless we are all willing to admit that there is something that most people recognize as ‘pits’ that are probably more likely to be involved in the mauling they have described than a poodle or a beagle or a German Shepard.
If someone told me that a German Shepard attacked their baby, I would take their word for it that they saw a GS. Maybe they know dick about dogs and it was something else. Ok. But if 500 people tell me a GS attacked their baby, I’m going to adjust for mis-identification, sure, but I will accept their word that MOST of those reported were probably German Shepards, and then go from there.
The point is, it’s completely unfair to say any dog that bites someone is a pitbull (which is EXACTLY what the media does) and then complain because “pitbulls” are always biting people. Can you get that?
No, miss elizabeth, you have not at all demonstrated that EXACTLY what the media does is say any dog that bites someone is a pitbull. Can *you *get that?? To be honest, you sound a little shrill to me.
Sure, I’m perfectly willing to accept that when most people talk about having encountered an aggressive “pit bull”, they are actually talking about some kind of shorthaired medium/large broad-headed “muscle dog”, and not just seriously misidentifying an aggressive toy poodle. (I’m sure there are some people who could look at a Yorkie and call it a “pit bull”, but I agree with you that the average person who uses the term probably has at least some vague mental image of a boxerish/bull-terrierish-type dog.)
But there are two issues with that:
-
That shorthaired medium/large broad-headed boxerish/bull-terrierish-type muscle dog could be any combination of dozens of different breeds. Referring to it by the term “pit bull”, which actually is the name of a particular breed, gives the false impression that this aggressive behavior is a breed-specific problem.
-
The overwhelming reason that so many aggressive dogs fit this “muscle dog” physical stereotype isn’t that the breeds that look like “muscle dogs” are naturally aggressive, but rather that the “muscle dog” is the type people nowadays choose when they want to train or own a dog for its aggressiveness.
In other words, the physical type of the “muscle dog” is not innately badass, but it’s what people deliberately select these days if they want a badass dog.
(As noted above by other posters, the fashion in “badass dog” breeds has changed over the decades, ranging from German Shepherds to Doberman Pinschers to Rottweilers. In World War II, breeds preferred by the military for sentry and guard dogs included Standard Poodles in addition to Dobermans, German Shepherds, Boxers and so forth. While Shepherds and Dobies and Boxers are still perceived as pretty butch, the popular image of the poodle nowadays has changed a lot!)
Both of those issues are reasons why we should ignore particular breed specifications when legislating about aggressive dogs. Muscle dogs that have been ignorantly and abusively bred and trained for aggression aren’t likely to have clearly identifiable pedigrees anyway, and in any case it’s their training far more than their bloodlines that makes them dangerous.
Then I suggest you scroll up.
Is this directed at me? What am I scrolling up for?
Ah. Thanks for this post.
I don’t see how two simple sentences can come across as shrill, but you’ve achieved it so admirably in three that I suppose it’s possible.
And 4 pages in, it’s been demonstrated amply. If you cannot find the links, perhaps you can get someone less hysterical to help you.
The link posted by Critical1 that discusses the media’s role in reporting dog attacks and from there you can find some interesting reports on other websites about the efficacy of mixed breed identification compared with genetic testing.
Hmm. I notice you imply that I used the word “hysterical” towards you. Perhaps we should define “shrill”.
“high pitched and piercing in sound”.
When someone responds to a calm and simple post with, “Can you get that?”, the tone can be inferred to be a tad…sharp.
But you know that, and you used that phrase for a reason. Simply turning the tables and saying, “No, you’re the one who sounds shrill” doesn’t make any sense at all.
There are no links you can point me to in this thread that will convince me that the media “takes any dog bite and reports it as a pit bull”. No. That is not ‘exactly’ what the media does. Just because you can site instances of the media misidentifying a dog doesn’t mean that the media generally takes ‘any’ dog bite and reports it as a pit bull. That statement is just ridiculous.
But yeah, gotta admire you wedging the word ‘hysteria’ into our little exchange here. Very interesting.
Certainly not 100% literally, but the problem is, as you yourself pointed out, that colloquial use of the term “pit bull” (as opposed to specific references to the official Pit Bull breed) tends to be very very fluid.
Popular usage and news media have more or less equated “pit bull” with “any shorthaired broad-headed aggressive dog”. So naturally, any shorthaired broad-headed dog that attacks somebody is going to be described as a “pit bull”.
And since shorthaired broad-headed dogs are currently what people look for who like their dogs aggressive, it’s not surprising that the vast majority of the dog bites reported in the media match that profile.
No, not at all. Sure, no doubt “Pit Bull attack” makes better headlines than “Chihuahua nibble” as generally only attacks which lead to injuries are reported. This does leave out the various small nasty bitey rat-dogs, which often do have a mean temper. Their ‘attacks’ rarely result in a injury, thus are rarely reported, even if common.
Next- few *AKC-registered purebred American Pit Bull Terriers *are involved in attacks, and even if so, they don’t carry their papers with them. This is due to the fact that folks with $1000 AKC-registered purebred American Pit Bull Terriers are generally not the kind of person to let their dog run loose, or to train it for fighting. So, the dogs reported as “Pit Bulls” are often mixes, not purebreds, but they certainly fit the base decription. Saying that unless they are “AKC-registered purebred American Pit Bull Terrier’s” they aren’t really Pit Bulls is disingenuous. It’s possible that some generic Mutts are reported as Pit bulls’ but there no evidence this is widespread. I accept that when the press reports a “pit bull attack” the dog is some sort of pit bull mix, with the general build, head, etc.
Pit Bull mixes are extremely common, and very many are seized every day from Fighting dog breeders and pits. If a dog today is raised to be a fighting dog, the chance is overwhelmingly is that it’s a Pit Bull type. Dogs raised to fight are much more likely to attack. Pit Bulls are more likely to be raised to fight. Ipso facto, Pit Bulls are more likely to attack (and by attack, I mean attack with injuries). That’s not because *the breed *is vicious, it’s because it’s the breed far and away most likely *to be trained to be vicious. *
So, altho I am not going to accept that “dog attack= pit bull attack”, I will accept that when a “Pit Bull attack” hits the news, the dog involved is very likely to be some sort of Pit Bull mix.
No, I didn’t, although I can see how you read it that way. I was implying you are hysterical, since you went totally nuts at a simple post that wasn’t even directed at you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
So true. And when someone uses carefully selected italics to convey extreme emotion, such as you did, it has a similar effect.
I actually didn’t, but I realize you won’t buy that. You used it quite effectively though, what with the italics and the multiple question marks, and repeating my name like my mom would and all. It really conveyed your feelings.
Well, it did in this case.
I’m quite sure you’re correct, which is why I won’t bother to post any. You seem defiantly ignorant on this topic, and unwilling to learn. Now, just because there are no links that would convince you doesn’t mean they don’t exist, of course.
I’m quite sure you think so. I think walking into a thread and posting the same thing that’s already been said, and debunked, is a bit ridiculous. But hey, different strokes for different folks.
I did think it hearkened back to your use of the word “shrill” which is a gendered insult, as is hysterical. It amused me; I’m glad it also brought you a small amount of pleasure. Happy to be of service.
Cite, please.
Cloudy skies are more likely to produce rain. :rolleyes:Cars that can go faster than the speed limit are more likely to get speeding tickets. :rolleyes:
Do you actually think that dogs who are raised to be vicious fighting dogs are less likely to attack than dogs raised by a loving family? :dubious:
Most fatuous request for cite I have seen.