The "Pit Bull" Myth

[Whack-a-Mole]

@NajaNivea

You mean, significantly higher than other dog types, like the dog types created to attack and kill human beings?

Not sure why you keep stressing this point. Personally I disagree with you on some dogs being bred to attack humans. Notably you mentioned GSDs earlier as in this group. GSD are, as the name implies, a herding dog. They were not bred to attack humans. Their size, intelligence and work ethic make them amenable to training so can be brought to do so but it is not in their nature as such and I do not ever remember reading that protecting their flocks involved human aggression in their nature.

Further, dog aggression that you have stipulated earlier a Pit possesses, can indeed be a danger to humans.

here has been no published study of the number of dog bites suffered by humans which resulted from an attack or attempted attack by one dog against another dog. Nevertheless, the experience of Attorney Kenneth Phillips suggests that a significant percentage of bites to humans result from such incidents. For that reason, it is his opinion that a dog’s propensity to attack other dogs clearly makes that dog dangerous to people.

Approximately one-third of Mr. Phillips’ cases started out as a dog attacking another dog, and then turned into a dog attacking a person.

<snip>

On the basis of cases which he handled or was involved in, Mr. Phillips is of the opinion that one of the things that makes any dog dangerous to people is its propensity to attack other dogs. The reason is that the owner of the other dog is often nearby, either trying to pull the dog away, holding the dog, or breaking up the fight. It is natural for a human being to protect his or her pet. This is a normal human response to a dog fight – unless the person is a criminal who attends dog fights.

<snip>

There is a side of this that is a current hot topic in the dog world: breed specific laws. It is a sad fact of life that the pit bull was created by mankind to kill other small animals. Like it or not, that is what the dog was bred for, and it remains the essence of the dog. Any one pit bull might be sweet to its owner, but is still “hard-wired” to kill other small animals. For that reason, pit bulls are dangerous to people because they have the in-born propensity to attack other people’s pets, which often results in a redirected attack against the other people, or a bite to another person.

SOURCE: Vicious Dogs

[rhubarbarin]

@stuthehistoryguy

Honestly, NajaNivea, the flat-out “everybody’s out to get the pit bulls” paranoia running through your post is what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about “my sweet schmoopie-pie furbaby could never harm a flea!” types. I’m talking about Michael F. Vick and the like.

You might be interested to hear then that 47 of the 51 dogs seized when they busted Vick have been rehabilitated (from fearful behaviors rather than aggressive ones) and rehomed as family pets, many in homes with small children.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/12/22/vick.dogs/index.html

From the SI article:

*n an organized dogfight three or four people are in the ring, and the dogs are often pulled apart to rest before resuming combat. (The fight usually ends when one of the dogs refuses to reengage.) When separating two angry, adrenaline-filled animals, the handlers have to be sure the dogs won’t turn on them, so over the years dogfighters have either killed or not bred dogs that showed signs of aggression toward humans. “Of all dogs,” says Dr. Frank McMillan, the director of well-being studies at Best Friends Animal Society, a 33,000-acre sanctuary in southern Utah, “pit bulls possess the single greatest ability to bond with people.”

Perhaps that’s why for decades pit bulls were considered great family dogs and in England were known as “nanny dogs” for their care of children. Petey in The Little Rascals was a pit bull, as was Stubby, a World War I hero for his actions with the 102nd Infantry in Europe, such as locating wounded U.S. soldiers and a German spy. Most dog experts will attest that a pit bull properly trained and socialized from a young age is a great pet.

Still, pit bulls historically have been bred for aggression against other dogs, and if they’re put in uncontrolled situations, some of them will fight, and if they’re not properly socialized or have been abused, they can become aggressive toward people. It doesn’t mean that all pit bulls are instinctively inclined to fight, but there is that potential. Bad Newz killed dogs because it couldn’t get them to be aggressive enough. The kennel also raised at least two grand champions, dogs with a minimum of five wins apiece.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/12/22/vick.dogs/1.html#ixzz0YfZ9HvQm
*

[NajaNivea]

@ivan_astikov

And how many attacks per year were they estimated to be responsible for?

I don’t know. The earliest study I could find was the Winkler study, covering 74-75. Winkler was at the Bureau of Epidemiology at the CDC. It appears that he was preparing the report as a legitimate version of the Clifton report–a preliminary media survey that would demonstrate the scope of the problem, and pave the way for more comprehensive surveillance and study of the situation. He notes that he could find eleven deaths by dog attack, that there was no national surveillance of dog bites or dog bite related fatalities, and thus no way to know how many deaths were actually caused by dogs, or what proportion of bites resulted in fatalities. I suppose it’s possible there were twice as many bite-related fatalities and all the unreported cases were pit dogs, but that seems unlikely to be the case. They estimate about a million bites, and report on eleven fatalities, found through police, hospital, and newspaper records. Today we have about 4.7 million bites and average about 16 fatalities. It’s difficult to say whether we have more bites per dog today than before–many dog bites are reported as such that would never have seen a doctor’s care in the 70’s.*

He found reports of dog bite related fatalities involving St. Bernards, shepherds, a husky, a collie mix, a dauchshund, a basenji, a great dane… no pit bull. Plenty of people were fighting pit dogs in the 70’s, and plenty of people kept them as pets… but not people who wanted big, tough-looking dogs.
The interesting thing about the report is the common factors noted–unattended children, dogs on chains. All the victims save one were small children incapable of deflecting an attack.

He notes:

German Shepherds, not unexpectedly, were the breed most often involved (three attacks). German Shepherds are the most common breed among large dogs registered by the American Kennel Club (unpublished data for calendar year 1975). Also, any large breed of unrecognizable parentage is commonly identified as a German Shepherd.

This is the Sacks study that covers the time period between 1979 and 1988. In 1/3 of the fatalities, breed wasn’t reported. Of the times it was, “pit bull breeds” (breeds, plural) were responsible for 20% in 1979 and 80, and 62% in 87-88.

Today, pit bull type dogs are the phenotype of choice for folks that want big, tough-looking dogs. They’re the most common types of dogs neglected, most common to be found as strays. As the Sacks report notes, pit bull bites were twice as likely to be perpetrated by a stray dog. They’re cheap, seen as disposable by the sorts of people who get a dog, chain it in the yard, then don’t pay attention to it for two years. The term “pit bull” has also come to denote our generic mixed-breed shelter dog phenotype: medium sized, short coat, floppy or semi-prick ears, stock build, blunt snout.

What has changed here over the span of time isn’t that more dogs are dangerous, or even that more dogs are more severely dangerous. It’s not even that dog owners have changed much–there’s still a percentage that leave their small children alone with dogs, and still a percentage that keep neglected, chained dogs. What’s changed is pretty much just the general public’s image of a “dangerous dog”, and what the general public identifies as a “pit bull”.

[NajaNivea]

@pan1

But if I had my druthers any dog over 20 lbs would require a class, a test, and an earned license.

Ah. Well, I can’t argue a ton with this post, as I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with most of it, at least in principle. I don’t think the American public would be thrilled with that kind of control and oversight, but I’d vote for mandatory dog ownership education and testing. I wouldn’t limit it to dogs over 20lbs, though.
By the way–anyone who thinks they have such conclusive stats should submit them to a journal for review, because I’m sure the CDC would like to see them. I remain skeptical of any such definitive claim until I see the data myself.

But, I’m not morally opposed to the simple elimantion of the most dangerous breeds. Not necessarily through forced euthanasia - forced sterilization would serve the purpose over the course of a decade.

This though, I don’t agree with. Mostly because as we’ve already discussed, it’s not the breed that’s dangerous, it’s the upbringing. Good dog owners keep perfectly nice Malamutes and perfectly nice pit dogs. I don’t see a reason to eliminate useful and likable dogs from our world because 0.0001% of dog owners (and/or parents) fuck up.

[NajaNivea]

@Whack-a-Mole

Not sure why you keep stressing this point. Personally I disagree with you on some dogs being bred to attack humans. Notably you mentioned GSDs earlier as in this group. GSD are, as the name implies, a herding dog. They were not bred to attack humans. Their size, intelligence and work ethic make them amenable to training so can be brought to do so but it is not in their nature as such and I do not ever remember reading that protecting their flocks involved human aggression in their nature.

I only keep stressing this point because of the assumption floating around that a “dog fighting” dog is more dangerous than a “boar fighting dog” or a “people fighting dog”.
GSDs were originally a herding dog, and today are sometimes used as herding dogs, but have been bred primarily as personal-protection, police and military dogs for over a hundred years. Von Stephanitz knew at the turn of the century that the GSD’s role as a pastoral shepherd would be limited and began directing breeding for a more versatile working, primarily military-use dog.
They might not have been bred to attack humans 150 years ago, but since the turn of the century and specifically WW1, that most certainly has been a huge part of their development and duty.

ETA: Look, I’m not trying to malign your breed or anything, I’m just trying to get people to understand that there are plenty of other breeding backgrounds out there which carry traits significantly more likely to translate to human-targeted aggression than dog-aggressive traits.

Further, dog aggression that you have stipulated earlier a Pit possesses, can indeed be a danger to humans.

The cite you’re quoting belongs to a shyster dog bite attorney, trolling for plaintiffs, who mostly spends his time quoting the Clifton report. He is not a reputable source for anything.

[independentminded]

This:

@Whack-a-Mole

By your analysis we should ban all cars because they are FAR more dangerous than dogs. If just one child is saved it’d be worth it right?

is a lot of baloney, Whack-a-Mole.

[ivan_astikov]

It’s notable that in the linked article about the Liverpool incident, the “ferocious” pit bull was unable to kill the grandmother who was trying to stop it having its wicked way.

If their main danger is to children, there’s a simple lesson to be learned here, isn’t there?

[DragonAsh]

@ivan_astikov

It’s notable that in the linked article about the Liverpool incident, the “ferocious” pit bull was unable to kill the grandmother who was trying to stop it having its wicked way.

If their main danger is to children, there’s a simple lesson to be learned here, isn’t there?

Possibly. Or maybe it didn’t kill the grandmother because it was too busy trying to kill the kid? N=1 here, but the one bad dog fight I’ve seen, the owner was trying to get his dog (pit bull) off another dog (I think a lab). The pit bull would briefly turn on his owner (who ended up with some pretty serious bites on his hands and arms), but then would turn back to the lab.

Although it does sound like the grandmother was also bitten on the ‘leg and body’ - probably as she was struggling to get the dog out of the house. One wonders what would have happened if she had fallen down, for example.

And an update on the Liverpool case:

Christian Foulkes, 21, was detained this morning by detectives from Merseyside Police following the death of the little boy on Monday.

A spokeswoman for the force said: ''A 21-year-old man from the Wavertree area of Liverpool has this morning been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter by detectives investigating the death of four-year-old John Paul Massey.

‘‘He is currently in police custody and will be interviewed later today. No other arrests have been made.’’

The arrest comes after tests showed that the dog, called Uno, was a pitbull, banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

<snip>

The case comes less than three years after five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson, also being minded by her grandmother, was savaged to death by her uncle’s pitbull terrier, Reuben, 10 miles away in St Helens, also Merseyside.

The force said that, since that attack on New Year’s Day 2007, they have clamped down on the problem and destroyed 339 dogs of illegal breeds.

Of interest here: The UK has a Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991: While the act applies to all dogs, they specifically mention four types of dogs - and note that the act is careful not to specify breed: The four types are: pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, dogo argentino, and fila brasilerio. The act also applies to ‘any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose’.

The UK law looks like a spectacularly bad piece of legislation, thrown together by some politicians trying to score points in the face of some ugly tabloid articles. They had to revise the Act in 1997 after dogs were being destroyed unnecessarily.

However, the UK isn’t alone in banning or restricting dangerous dogs. Australia has some breed-specific legislation, and so does some Canadian and US munincipal governments.

I found this interesting:

In Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2007 CanLII 9231 (ON S.C.), Ms. Catherine Cochrane sued the Province of Ontario to prevent it from enforcing the Dog Owner’s Liability Act (DOLA) ban on pit bull-type dogs, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally broad because the ban was grossly disproportionate to the risk pit bulls pose to public safety, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague because failed to provide an intelligible definition of pit bulls. The presiding judge ruled that the DOLA was not overbroad because,

“The evidence with respect to the dangerousness of pit bulls, although conflicting and inconclusive, is sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute a ‘reasoned apprehension of harm’. In the face of conflicting evidence as to the feasibility of less restrictive means to protect the public, it was open to the legislature to decide to restrict the ownership of all pit bulls.”

More info here:

[rhubarbarin]

@stuthehistoryguy

Not the best analogy. Jack Russells can be nasty, especially to little kids.

I support the dogs. The regulation in my city (Omaha) states that a pit bull needs to be muzzled unless they have their CGC (canine good citizen) designation. Not a horrible idea, but a little silly.

The only time I’ve ever really had an issue with pit bull aficionados is when they claim that fighting dogs aren’t dangerous to humans. Do I have a shred of evidence that says fighting dogs ARE dangerous to humans? Not really; not my field. It IS a little hard for me to accept that a dog bred and trained to rip the viscera from other dogs isn’t a problem around people. Call it an irrational fear of killer animals, I guess.

There is no viscera-ripping in professional dog fights. It would be very difficult to train a dog to kill another dog and eat it (the only reason for viscera-ripping is to eat the much desired organs) the way it would a prey animal - these are animals with billions of years of evolution behind them encouraging them to get along and to fight in a certain ritualized way.

The dogs are encouraged to bite, hold, and shake to cause maximum tearing, pain, and blood loss. Most injuries are to the face, ears, neck, and chest (where the protective thick and loose skin is, and where all dogs tend to injure each other when they fight). Usually the losing dog does not die in the fight - it is the one that yields or becomes so exhausted it can’t fight back. Although they are often killed afterward directly by the owner, from blood loss, or from untreated injuries.

This is also of course they way all dogs (not just pit bulls) bite and kill children - overwhelmingly face, head or neck injuries. They aren’t engaging with them the way they would prey animals (wolves and dogs overwhelmingly approach prey from behind and start eating at the haunches and stomach) they are treating them the way they would another dog. Unfortunately our skin, heads and necks are about 50x as fragile as a dog’s. What would be a bruising reprimand on a dog can puncture us and cause quite a bit of bleeding.

Here are the original rules of dog fighting, still used in large part today. Michael Vick fought his dogs by these rules.

Cajun Rules:

Rule 1: Size of pit, optional; to be square with sides 2 feet high, scratch line 12 feet apart.

Rule 2: Referee to be chosen before the dogs are weighed in or washed and referee to conduct the contest according to these rules and his decision to be final.

Rule 3: Referee to see the dogs weighed at time agreed on and if either dog is over top weight agreed on he loses the forfeit money.

Rule 4: Parties to toss coin to see who shall wash first, each party to furnish two clean towels and a blanket.

Rule 5: If requested to do so the referee shall search the person named to wash the dogs and then have him bare his arm to the elbow and wash both dogs in the same warm water and rinse them each in his half of the warm clean water provided for that purpose.

Rule 6: As the dogs are washed clean and dried they shall be turned over to their handlers and at once taken to their corners of the pit as designated by the referee and the referee must search handlers for means of foul play and see that he bares his arms to the elbow before he receives his dog and must keep his arms bare in such a manner during the contest.

Rule 7: The dog’s owner or his representative shall be allowed at all times to be near his dog and watch to see that no harm is done him, and each owner shall be allowed to name a man or himself watch his opponent’s dog and handler at all times to see he is given no unfair advantage.

Rule 8: Either dog’s owner, handler, or watcher if he sees anything wrong must at once appeal to the referee and get his decision. And if any handler, watcher or owner violates any of these rules and thereby favors either dog the dog so favored must at once be declared the loser.

Rule 9: The interested parties shall choose a timekeeper at the pit side.

Rule 10: The dogs are placed in their corners of the pit, opposite corners, faces turned from each other and only the dogs and their handlers inside the pit. Then the referee shall say, “Face you dogs”. Each handler must always show his dog full head and shoulders between his legs. The referee says, “Let go”, but the handlers must never push or shove their dogs and handlers shall not leave their corners until the dogs are together.

Rule 11: Now when one of the dogs turns his head and shoulders away from his opponent after the fight is on it is a turn, whether they are in holds or free, and the handler must claim the turn and the referee must allow the claim if he believes it is a turn or the referee must call the first fair turn he sees whether the handler claims it or not and when the referee calls a turn he shall say, “Handle your dogs”, and each handler must pick up his dog as soon as he can without breaking a hold. Handlers carry their dogs to their respective corners the referee shall say, “Face your dogs”. Then the handlers must show their dog’s head and shoulders between their legs, facing the center of the pit. The dog that turned first must scratch first. In five seconds more the referee shall say; “Let go”, then the dog that made the first turn must be turned loose by his handler and this dog must go across and mouth the other dog. If, when he is turned loose he refuses to start at once or is he stops on the way over, or if he fails to reach his opponent must declare his opponent the winner. A handler is allowed to release his dog at anytime he sees fit after the dog whose turn it is to cross has started over. He must turn him loose when the dogs touch each other. He is not compelled to until then.

Rule 12:

1. If neither dog has made a turn and they cease to fight after 60 seconds of no action the down dog is to scratch first, if he makes his scratch the fight is on and they shall scratch in turns until the contest is decided.
2. If the down dog fails to scratch the other dog is to scratch to win. If he fails to scratch the contest shall be declared a draw by the referee.
3. No handler is to handle his dog until ordered by referee, if he does, it shall be called a foul and he is to forfeit the contest to his opponent.
4. No flash pictures or hitting on pit side shall be allowed unless agreed upon by the two contestants.

Rule 13: After the dogs are together this time either handler is allowed to pick up his dog when they are not in holds, if ordered by referee. If he tries for a pick up and either dog has a hold he must turn him loose at once. If he catches his dog up free both handlers must handle their dogs at once. Take their dogs to their corners and proceed same as at the first turn, except this time the dog which went across before is allowed to remain in his corner while his opponent makes a scratch, or goes across, and they alternate or take it turn about in this manner until one of them is declared the winner under these rules. The referee pays no attention to the turns after the first scratch.

Rule 14: If one of the dogs fangs himself, that is, if he gets his teeth hung in his own lip, his handler is allowed to un-fang him. If the dogs have to be separated for this they are turned loose again, both at the same time within two feet of each other in the center of the pit.

Rule 15: No sponging shall be allowed, and no towels or anything else taken into the pit by the handlers except a bottle of drink for his dog and a fan to cool him with. The handlers must taste their dogs drink before the referee to show that it contains no poison.

Rule 16: If the handler of either dog is seen to take anything from anyone on the outside of the pit he is to lose the battle. Each party shall have the right to put a man near his opponent’s corner to watch the handler. Should he see the handler put anything on his dog he may appeal to the referee and if the referee finds anything on the dog he is to lose the battle.

Rule 17: Should either handler leave the pit with his dog before the referee renders his decision he is to lose the battle.

Rule 18: The handlers shall be allowed to encourage their dogs by voice or hand-clapping or snapping of fingers, but must not touch their dogs or use foul, dirty methods, by saving their dogs from hard fall or keeping the other handler away from his dog, or in any other way act unfairly. The referee must decide the battle against the one who does so.

Rule 19: Should the police interfere the referee to name the next meeting place.

[Jackmannii]

@rhubarbarin

There is no viscera-ripping in professional dog fights.

Didn’t Tom Hanks say this in “A Pit Of Their Own”?

[NajaNivea]

Nice,** Jackmannii**

@rhubarbarin

This is also of course they way all dogs (not just pit bulls) bite and kill children - overwhelmingly face, head or neck injuries. They aren’t engaging with them the way they would prey animals (wolves and dogs overwhelmingly approach prey from behind and start eating at the haunches and stomach) they are treating them the way they would another dog. Unfortunately our skin, heads and necks are about 50x as fragile as a dog’s. What would be a bruising reprimand on a dog can puncture us and cause quite a bit of bleeding.

Thanks for your post, rhubarbarin, it’s exactly right, and illustrates a valuable point: it’s not that the dog is mistaking the child for another dog that it wants to murder, it’s that the dog is communicating with the child using the language that dogs use, when body language and vocalizations have failed. An adult interacting with an aggressive dog is likely to read appropriately threatening body language and respond appropriately. A toddler does not.
Insufficiently trained or unattended dogs schooling a small child for trying to take away their toy or sticking a hand in their food bowl, and taking advantage of an opportunity to rise in the ranks in pack status are a whooooole hell of a lot more common than free-roaming, crack-fed, pit-fighting hellhounds.

DragonAsh: you’re right the DDA was spectacularly bad. It has also done absolutely* nothing* to curb the incidence of severe dog attacks or dog bite related fatalities. Check out the COCC thread for more extensive discussion about countries and states which have enacted, then reversed or are currently reconsidering BSL in the wake of spectacular failure. The AVMA recommends a model comprehensive “Dangerous Dog Legislation” in their report.

[lurking_guest]

Rotweillers. Dobermans. Pit Bulls. German Shephards.

Please people.

These dogs are bread to HURT.

Each other and humans. And other dogs.

And there it is.

If there are no circumstances in their lives which call upon those traits…great.

If there ARE (and THAT IS the BAD stuff) in their “dog” minds - then look out!

Jeez people.

I think it best, in these horrendous circumstances, to kill these dogs.

YMMV

[NajaNivea]

Four dogs of the apocalypse.

We all KNOW.

They are pure canine evil.

I thought this thing had gone belly up…but.

Here’s some gibberish I can’t quite sort out.

By “horrendous circumstances” (does THIS person MEAN) actual “harm caused” - or!

Just fitting some schmuck’s picture of evil “dog” incarnate.

YMMV

[independentminded]

@NajaNivea

The CDC isn’t a “reputable source”? Nor are the AVMA, AAP, ASPS, and ASPCA… all of whom agree that there’s no useful statistical correlation to be drawn with the current data?
When you say “The Acturarial and Statistical studies”, which “Acturarial and Statistical studies” are you talking about?

You mean, significantly higher than other dog types, like the dog types created to attack and kill human beings?
What are you talking about? There are different breeds of dogs used in dog fighting, for one thing, and secondly, most fatal dog attacks aren’t perpetrated by “fighting dogs”. In any case, it doesn’t matter what “dog fighters” are doing, it matters what abusive and neglectful dog owners are doing. It doesn’t matter whether a boxer mix makes a good pit dog or not, if what the owner is after is a bad-ass looking dog that will sit around his junk yard on a chain its whole life (and, incidentally, maul the neighbor’s unattended toddler who wanders into the yard). It also doesn’t matter whether a husky makes a good pit dog, if it sees the infant as a squeaky toy.

If nothing else, how do you explain all the stats prior to the HSUS promotion of the pit bull as a homicidal maniac, demonstrating that at that time, the GSD and Chow were most common perpetrators? I know I (and all reputable and relevant authorities) explain this by pointing out that sleezebags that wanted canine weapons found those breeds fashionable at that time. There were plenty of pit dogs living amongst us in the 50’s, they just weren’t popular amongst the sleezebag set then.

It’s more likely, imho, that people just weren’t aware of how much damage pitbulls are capable of inflicting, and how many people/pets are killed or permanently maimed as a consequence of pitbull attacks. Those dogs have a much deeper bite–they actually go right for the musculature of their victim, while most dog bites are much more superficial. This is not to say that other dogs don’t bite or attack when they feel provoked, but most dogs, unlike pitbulls, give a warning growl when about to attack, and most dogs don’t turn on their owners or anybody else just out of the blue, the way pitbulls are prone to doing. There’s a reason why pitbulls are used by drugdealers, gangsters, and other people, who just want to prove how tough and macho they are, and getting a pitbull reinforces that image for them. Their DNA, plus their combative temperaments makes them a prime dog for fighting. That’s why they’re bred for fighting; because they’re physically and emotionally combat/attack-ready. d

Moreover, the whole idea that any dog can attack and tear somebody apart is pure malarkey, as far as i’m concerned. Comparing pitbulls to other dogs is ridiculous. I agree with that. However, I’ve never heard of or read about Beagles or Greyhounds attacking out of the blue, killing or permanently maiming another dog, other animal, or even a human being.

[NajaNivea]

Dude, most of your post is just the same ad-nauseum repeat of the same tired urban legends. Your last paragraph is just an appeal to ignorance with a couple Beagle and Greyhound shaped strawmen for good measure.

Also, I love that your rejection of the relevant studies in time periods prior to the pit bull media frenzy centers on the logic that “the CDC researchers just couldn’t figure it out until the tabloids told us”.