# The "Pit Bull" Myth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682 "2009-11-23T19:55:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/21 "2009-11-23T23:22:42Z")
Scratch “solely” in my previous post; change it to “predominantly.” Sorry for the slop. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/22 "2009-11-23T23:27:45Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > You did receive a substantiative response, which you ignored save for the “one drop rule” phrase. You’ve received at least one other on the same topic in this thread, which I see below you’re continuing to dodge. I’ve bothered to reproduce relevant posts here, please extend the same courtesy. If you’re talking about those PDF’s I don’t know what they’re supposed to prove. Those are gimmicks, not research. I don’t have a good answer for what the specifics of a policy should be. I think it should be a goal to eradicate the dog aggressive lines. I am open to some fairly harsh methods. [QUOTE=Naja Nivea] Seriously, have you read anything I’ve said? At no point did I ever say anything that would lead any reasonable person to such a conclusion. That you pull it out of your ass and then stick “I don’t know if this is what you meant, but…” at the beginning before spewing a bunch of crap forth is again, either disingenuous in the extreme or very conveniently naive. [/QUOTE] Eh. My mistake then. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/23 "2009-11-23T23:30:26Z")
**ExTank** , the site you are linking to is created and maintained by a \*\*shystery dog bite attorney outfit. \*\* This point has been repeatedly addressed, and the site debunked in every thread that comes along. It’s pure ambulance chasing. The Clifton report which he spends more or less all of his time referencing is, as was said in the other thread, nothing but a steaming pile of fly-ridden nonsense. The CDC and AVMA agree that there are serious and fundamental flaws in the method of any study which purports to count statistics on dog bites by breed. [By far the overwhelmingly common factor is not breed or type, but mishandling.](http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm) The AVMA on why the Clifton report isn’t worth the bandwidth it occupies: > [@](#): > > Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.7 Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds. > First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurately recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual number of bites that occur in a community is not known, especially if they did not result in serious injury. Third, the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete.7 Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community. The AVMA’s Community approach to dog bite prevention spells it out very clearly. By far the predominant factor in dog bite incidents \*is \*“human activity”. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/24 "2009-11-23T23:31:00Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > Are you conceding that you’re working awfully hard to avoid the topic at hand? I’m doing my best to answer your questions. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/25 "2009-11-23T23:33:03Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > I’ve bothered to reproduce relevant posts here, please extend the same courtesy. I did, in the very same post. > [@](#): > > If you’re talking about those PDF’s I don’t know what they’re supposed to prove. Those are gimmicks, not research. Seriously? Did you… look at them? Did you notice that they’re photos of dogs, paired with their **DNA test results**? If you fail to see how these examples are germane to the discussion, I think we might be at a complete impasse. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/26 "2009-11-23T23:33:07Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > [[By far the overwhelmingly common factor is not breed or type, but mishandling.](http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm) Asking sincerely, where in this cite does it say what your purport it says? ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/27 "2009-11-23T23:39:23Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > I did, in the very same post. > > Seriously? Did you… look at them? > Did you notice that they’re photos of dogs, paired with their **DNA test results**? > > If you fail to see how these examples are germane to the discussion, I think we might be at a complete impasse. These are pretty small sample sizes - so small that, alone, they are meaningless. How can we be sure they haven’t been cherry-picked? These could be the most disparate breed to phenotype instances (though the retriever ones are not that surprising). Then again, they might be representational, but standing on their own, they give me a big meh. Do you honestly think of these two flyers as watertight evidence for your case? ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/28 "2009-11-23T23:43:22Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Asking sincerely, where in this cite does it say what your purport it says? Here: > [@](#): > > 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.\* And here: > [@](#): > > Gershman KA, Sacks JJ, Wright JC. Which dogs bite? A case-control study of risk factors. Pediatrics 1994;93:913-7. > Biting and non-biting dogs in Denver are compared. Biting dogs were more likely to be male, unneutered, and chained. …for a start, though I’ll certainly concede it takes a little reading to get to the punchlines. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/29 "2009-11-23T23:53:18Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > These are pretty small sample sizes - so small that, alone, they are meaningless. How can we be sure they haven’t been cherry-picked? These could be the most disparate breed to phenotype instances (though the retriever ones are not that surprising). Then again, they might be representational, but standing on their own, they give me a big meh. Do you honestly think of these two flyers as watertight evidence for your case? This is getting tiresome. Do you want to address the issues I raise, or just nitpick over numbers, like in the other thread? I don’t think of them as “watertight”, simply as illustrations to a point I keep trying to make, and which you keep dodging. Any countless number of breeds and mixes may fit the “canine racial stereotype”. At least one study demonstrates that mixed-breed dogs are misidentified with rates we’d call “gross incompetence” in any other context. What then makes you feel it’s okay to slaughter them wholesale, on such spurious evidence as visual identification? There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate a medium-sized, short-coated dog with a broad skull and semi-prick ears is any more dangerous to man or beast than any other dog of comparable size, seeing as how such a description can fit a countless number of dogs with no pit-fighting blood in recent history. The PDFs in question are simply photos and DNA results to illustrate the point, lest you continue to claim that you or anyone else has an infallible ability to ID pit-dogs on sight. Now, if your argument is just “kill 'em all and let Og sort 'em out” well, then we’re at an impasse there, too. I’m open to fairly harsh methods for population control and public safety, too, but the method of using visual ID to determine which dogs live and die is jut… grossly misinformed. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/30 "2009-11-24T00:00:47Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > I don’t think of them as “watertight”, simply as illustrations to a point I keep trying to make, and which you keep dodging. > > Any countless number of breeds and mixes may fit the “canine racial stereotype”. At least one study demonstrates that mixed-breed dogs are misidentified with rates we’d call “gross incompetence” in any other context. What then makes you feel it’s okay to slaughter them wholesale, on such spurious evidence as visual identification? There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate a medium-sized, short-coated dog with a broad skull and semi-prick ears is any more dangerous to man or beast than any other dog of comparable size, seeing as how such a description can fit a countless number of dogs with no pit-fighting blood in recent history. The PDFs in question are simply photos and DNA results to illustrate the point, lest you continue to claim that you or anyone else has an infallible ability to ID pit-dogs on sight. They were offered as a substantive response (says you) to my criticism of the phenotype ID study. They are not a substantive response. As such, I have received no substantive response. I have already said, I have no good answer as to what should be done, but that is due in part to the fact that I have yet to see a defense to my crticism of the only research on phenotype identification thus far proffered. What’s your solution to reducing the dog-aggeresive lines? ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/31 "2009-11-24T00:23:07Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > They were offered as a substantive response (says you) to my criticism of the phenotype ID study. They are not a substantive response. As such, I have received no substantive response. Let’s try this again. This makes three. Hope springs ever eternal. > [@](#): > > Uh huh. So you’re happy to see them banned from shelters and summarily euthanized, even knowing that DNA evidence indicates that mixed-breed dogs are largely unidentifiable by phenotype? How do you propose the shelters enforce this rule for maximum safety? Should they just kill all medium-sized dogs with short coats and broad skulls, to be safe, like, say, [PDF]these dogs? What about all the mixed breed dogs with some amount between one drop and 49% of pit blood, which you assert are just as potentially lethal, how are we to identify and kill those dogs when they may look nothing at all like the breed standard? What about all those dogs which don’t look like pit bulls, but which carry predominantly pit-history blood? Can you find the “pit bull” in [this roster](http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/do-you-know-a-lab-mix.pdf)? [PDF] > It’s grossly illogical to use phenotype to decide which dogs get to live and be adopted and loved and which ones end up in a pile of corpses. On the “merely sad” side, countless perfectly wonderful dogs are killed annually because they happen to have the wrong shape of ears or too-broad a snout. On the “stupid, and potentially lethal” side, such a policy means a shelter is likely adopting out potentially much more dangerous dogs, because they think a cute, fluffy, prick-eared “shepherd type” is de facto “safe”. If they’re relying on phenotype to determine a dog’s relative safety, they’re focusing on the absolute least important cause for concern in the prevention of dog bite incidents. Why don’t you try addressing the points I raise, instead of dodging them with “I don’t have a solution”. You clearly have one solution, now why don’t you give a go at defending it? > [@](#): > > I have already said, I have no good answer as to what should be done, but that is due in part to the fact that I have yet to see a defense to my crticism of the only research on phenotype identification thus far proffered. If you dismiss DNA evidence and peer-reviewed studies as insufficient evidence to support my contentions, then I think we’re arguing from two different worlds. I keep asking you why it makes sense to slaughter dogs en masse and you just keep saying “because pits are dog aggressive”. I keep saying “not all dogs that look like pits are pits” and you keep saying “pits are dog aggressive, kill 'em all”. Where are we to go from here? > [@](#): > > What’s your solution to reducing the dog-aggeresive lines? We have no idea which “lines” of dog are dog aggressive, and the vast majority of dog aggression issues don’t stem from genetics, anyway. There is no such thing as a “breeding line” in the world of random-source dogs. The only logical route, and the most effective in terms of public safety, is to base the decision on effective temperament-testing conducted by knowledgeable and experienced dog handlers. Period. I have no problem whatsoever euthanizing aggressive dogs of any breed or type rather than offering them to the general public for adoption. I do have a problem with making this determination based solely on phenotype, as it is very simply no indication whatsoever of a dog’s relative safety. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/32 "2009-11-24T00:32:31Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > Let’s try this again. This makes three. Hope springs ever eternal. > > Why don’t you try addressing the points I raise, instead of dodging them with “I don’t have a solution”. You clearly have one solution, now why don’t you give a go at defending it? Ok. I am not trying to be contentious, but you must be skipping my posts. There is an implied “no” to your “proposals” when I say I don’t have a solution in response to the question of whether I would adopt those proposals. I am still not convinced (for reasons set forth below) that phenotype ID is as bad as you make it out to be, but that could change. > [@NajaNivea](#): > > If you dismiss DNA evidence and peer-reviewed studies as insufficient evidence to support my contentions, then I think we’re arguing from two different worlds. I keep asking you why it makes sense to slaughter dogs en masse and you just keep saying “because pits are dog aggressive”. I keep saying “not all dogs that look like pits are pits” and you keep saying “pits are dog aggressive, kill 'em all”. Where are we to go from here? You’re making stuff up. No exchange like you represent has occured in this thread. Seriously, I’m not trying to be contentious, but here’s what’s happened as I see it. 1. Someone linked the phenotype ID study. 2. I provided a criticism of the methods as reported. 3. Your so-called substantive defense was to link to two flyers with mix breed dogs who’d been DNA tested. Is this the DNA evidence and peer-reviewed studies you’re referencing, or have I missed someting? I must have. If this is it, then I think you have utterly failed to do what you’ve claimed to do, _i.e._ prove anything about phenotype ID. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/33 "2009-11-24T00:46:02Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Ok. I am not trying to be contentious, but you must be skipping my posts. There is an implied “no” to your “proposals” when I say I don’t have a solution in response to the question of whether I would adopt those proposals. But you _are_ electing to “adopt” those proposals, by stating support for the policy of summarily euthanizing any dog that fits the “canine racial profile”. > [@](#): > > You’re making stuff up. No exchange like you represent has occured in this thread. Seriously, I’m not trying to be contentious, but here’s what’s happened as I see it. > > 1. Someone linked the phenotype ID study. > 2. I provided a criticism of the methods as reported. > 3. Your so-called substantive defense was to link to two flyers with mix breed dogs who’d been DNA tested. > > Is this the DNA evidence and peer-reviewed studies you’re referencing, or have I missed someting? I must have. If this is it, then I think you have utterly failed to do what you’ve claimed to do, _i.e._ prove anything about phenotype ID. I am absolutely not making stuff up. You said you approve of your local shelter’s policy of summarily euthanizing pits, because they are inherently dog aggressive. I said “not all dogs look like pits. Here’s a study showing that shelter workers can’t identify mixed-breed dogs by phenotype. Here are some photographic illustrations of what various mixes may look like pits or labs, yet not be resultant of any such breeding history. Furthermore, here are at least a couple dozen dog breeds which fit the profile, as well as any permutation derived in crossing any number of other breeds.” Your “criticism” was summed up in the other thread with the following comment: > [@](#): > > This study suggests to me that the genetically predominant breed might not be the most physicially manifest. Which, oddly enough, is the exact point the authors were making, and the exact point I’m trying every way I know how to get you to understand. Furthermore, did you bother to read post #3 in this thread? It’s not “proof”, but I feel very confident about the conclusions I’ve drawn there, and have yet to see you respond to the points made. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/34 "2009-11-24T00:50:51Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > If this is it, then I think you have utterly failed to do what you’ve claimed to do, _i.e._ prove anything about phenotype ID. Let’s try this from a different direction. How about you try proving that all dogs everywhere which fit the general description of a “pit type dog” are, in fact, of pit-dog ancestry. I’ve already offered you several pieces of substantial evidence (and yes, a photo roster of greater than two dozen legitimate dog breeds which fit the profile is, in fact, substantial evidence to support my claim). Now, let’s see you offer some support for your contention: namely that any dog which fits this profile and comes in to your local shelter deserves to be put to death by virtue of external appearance. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/35 "2009-11-24T00:54:20Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > But you _are_ electing to “adopt” those proposals, by stating support for the policy of summarily euthanizing any dog that fits the “canine racial profile”. > I am absolutely not making stuff up. You said you approve of your local shelter’s policy of summarily euthanizing pits, because they are inherently dog aggressive. I said “not all dogs look like pits. Here’s a study showing that shelter workers can’t identify mixed-breed dogs by phenotype. Here are some photographic illustrations of what various mixes may look like pits or labs, yet not be resultant of any such breeding history. Furthermore, here are at least a couple dozen dog breeds which fit the profile, as well as any permutation derived in crossing any number of other breeds.” > Your “criticism” was summed up in the other thread with the following comment: > > Which, oddly enough, is the exact point the authors were making, and the exact point I’m trying every way I know how to get you to understand. > Furthermore, did you bother to read post #3 in this thread? It’s not “proof”, but I feel very confident about the conclusions I’ve drawn there, and have yet to see you respond to the points made. Ok. Let me think about this. I am not walking away from this thread, but I will not be able to hammer out a response - I am not trying to win, I am trying to see what the _best_ solution is. I see the inherrent problem in advocating a policy (the local shelter’s no pit policy) when identification is an issue. I will need to read more about issues with phenotype misidentification. Notwithstanding, my opinion remains unchanged on the breed, as established, for the reason _conceded_ by you above. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/36 "2009-11-24T00:56:14Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > Let’s try this from a different direction. > > How about you try proving that all dogs everywhere which fit the general description of a “pit type dog” are, in fact, of pit-dog ancestry. I’ve already offered you several pieces of substantial evidence (and yes, a photo roster of greater than two dozen legitimate dog breeds which fit the profile is, in fact, substantial evidence to support my claim). Now, let’s see you offer some support for your contention: namely that any dog which fits this profile and comes in to your local shelter deserves to be put to death by virtue of external appearance. To be honest, were I to adopt this proposal they all wouldn’t need to; just a substantial portion would justify the policy. However, as I stated above, I am not advocating this until I further educate myslef on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/37 "2009-11-24T01:04:05Z")
Just a note: this thread is a little ill-defined, as we’ve drifted from dog-aggression to shelter euthanization policy. To the extent that there is some purported “myth” regarding pit dog-aggression, the “myth” has been confirmed and entered the realm of acknowledged fact. What myth are we talking about now - that mutts that look like pits are in fact pits? ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/38 "2009-11-24T01:20:03Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Just a note: this thread is a little ill-defined, as we’ve drifted from dog-aggression to shelter euthanization policy. To the extent that there is some purported “myth” regarding pit dog-aggression, the “myth” has been confirmed and entered the realm of acknowledged fact. No. This is a gross misrepresentation and a very clearly obvious moving of the goal posts. Pit bulls’ dog aggressive history was \*never \* under contention, never at any point. Never once (and I thought we’d already hammered this one out) did I suggest that dog aggression as relates to pit-dogs was a “myth”. That you are still trying to characterize me as having made this claim causes me to wonder: are you doing it on purpose to be deliberately disingenuous, or am I to believe that you are continually naive? You are happy to strongly defend your own choice of words, so I find it hard to accept that these things are accidents on your part. The myth referred to by the thread title is the concept that pit-type dogs are inherently more prone to attack a _human being_–a point which you _conceded_, or at the very least, backpedaled from. > [@](#): > > To be honest, were I to adopt this proposal they all wouldn’t need to; just a substantial portion would justify the policy. You’ve been given a range of reasons as to why this is not so. I’ll definitely be interested in your conclusions. If you want to continue the discussion, then I’d certainly appreciate follow-up responses in this line: > [@](#): > > Ok. Let me think about this. I am not walking away from this thread, but I will not be able to hammer out a response - I am not trying to win, I am trying to see what the best solution is. I see the inherrent problem in advocating a policy (the local shelter’s no pit policy) when identification is an issue. I will need to read more about issues with phenotype misidentification. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/39 "2009-11-24T01:25:40Z")
> [@NajaNivea](#): > > No. This is a gross misrepresentation and a very clearly obvious moving of the goal posts. > > Pits’ dog aggressive history was \*never \* under contention, never at any point. Never once (and I thought we’d already hammered this one out) did I suggest that dog aggression as relates to pit-dogs was a “myth”. That you are still trying to characterize me as having made this claim causes me to wonder: are you doing it on purpose to be deliberately disingenuous, or am I to believe that you are continually naive? You are happy to strongly defend your own choice of words, so I find it hard to accept that these things are accidents on your part. Lighten up, it was a poorly broadcast joke. [QUOTE=NajaNivea] The myth referred to by the thread title is the concept that pit-type dogs are inherently more prone to attack a _human being_–a point which you _conceded_, or at the very least, backpedaled from. [/QUOTE] Sure, I’ll concede it. I never argued otherwise so there’s nothing to backpedal from, but we’ve been over that enough. Still, since we agree they have a history of dog-aggresson, I want to be clear that if there were an effective way to keep pits out of shelters without having a overhwelmingly negative impact on non-aggressive/non-pit mixes, I would advocate it. Why? Because I think responsible breeders and handlers are the best way to rehabilitate a breed. [QUOTE=NajaNivea] If you want to continue the discussion, then I’d certainly appreciate follow-up responses in this line: [/QUOTE] I’m not sure what this means. ---
**Author:** ![NajaNivea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NajaNivea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NajaNivea)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682/40 "2009-11-24T01:27:57Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Lighten up, it was a poorly broadcast joke. Sorry, I’m tired and that one wooshed right on by. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what this means. Simply that I appreciate that you’d rather take some time to chew it over before responding, and that I’ll look forward to your further thoughts on the issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-pit-bull-myth/518682.md?page=3)