The "Pit Bull" Myth

[whole_bean]

@NajaNivea

Sorry, I’m tired and that one wooshed right on by.
.

I never said it was a good joke.

[NajaNivea]

@whole_bean

I never said it was a good joke.

[gonzomax]

@NajaNivea

Responding in the appropriate forum, so as to avoid continuing a MPSIMS thread hijack:

Okay, lovely. First, some follow-up questions:
-What do you define as “tendencies for aggression toward other animals”?
-What breeds carry these tendencies? A handful of examples, or a general type is fine, I’m not necessarily asking for an encyclopedic listing, though the more specific you are the more helpful that will be in understanding your thoughts on the topic.

When I posed the question it was in response to an insinuation that a pit dog’s propensity for violence extends to any living thing, cat, dog, human, ponies, whatever. You said “if a dog is both large and prone to attack” but it seems you’re not quite willing to tell us exactly what that means. Is a 30lb pit dog “large”? Do the traits which make a dog prone to attack another dog have any connection to the traits which make a dog prone to attack a wolf, a fox, a hog, a rabbit, a rat, or a human being? What does “prone to attack” mean?
Do you know anything about the traits that make a dog prone to attack another dog? There are several of them, and they all function a little differently. Do you know what causes most of these traits?
Hint: it’s not genetics.

To answer your question, of course I don’t dispute that pit dogs have historically, and in some cases are currently, bred for dog-aggression, and for pit fighting. That’s… what “pit dog” means. To elaborate on what I assume you’re getting at: this of course means that dog-aggression is a significant concern in the care and handling of pit-type dogs, and that such traits must be addressed with specific and extensive socialization and continuous “proof-training” throughout the dog’s life, starting at birth. Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does very much matter. This is the whole basis for the urban legend, the mythology which drives breed-specific legislation efforts, and to which some not-insignificant percentage of the hundreds of thousands of dog bites perpetrated by non-bull-type breeds are in many ways directly attributable.

Dog aggression may be what you “came in [to that thread] about”, but you’re certainly happy to continue conflating dog-aggressive traits with human-aggressive traits. Would you now have us believe that you’re changing your tone, and that you no longer wish to assert that pit dogs are more potentially dangerous to human beings than any other breed?

Along the same lines, in the other thread you mention two other breeds which you refuse to board your dogs in the company of: Rottweilers and German Shepherd Dogs. What leads you to believe these two breeds are more particularly dangerous to your pets than any other breed? Above you (rightfully) assert that a pit dog’s fighting background raises concerns. Neither of these two breeds are dogs with pit-fighting histories. What makes them more inherently dangerous in a boarding situation where your expressed concern is dog-aggression?

As a small aside, how do you feel about Dobies? They’re the only one of the “four dogs of the apocalypse” which you missed. That you lump these three breeds together as “aggressive” without distinction suggests to me that you fall into the category of folks who “just know these dogs are dangerous… everyone says so, duh” without much further thought than that.
This is the idea I’m trying like hell to get you to explore: what makes you think a GSD is a bigger threat to your pet than, say, a Shar-Pei? Or a mutt of indeterminate phenotype? It’s the flip side of the pit/human aggression question.

Did you actually miss the multiple times I asserted (and linked to AVMA and CDC reports justifying) that no breed of dog is more potentially dangerous than any other? And that the only consistent factor in severe dog attacks is not breed or type, but mishandling?
If not, if you read and comprehended those posts, then… where did you get the idea I was arguing that one breed is more dangerous than another, and that these other “more dangerous” breeds lessened the potential risks with dogs of pit-blood background?

The question I posed comes in response to the repeated assertion (not just by you, but several other folks in the thread) that pits are “OMG SRSLY the most dangerous dogs EVAR”. That “there has never been a dog like a pit”, and so on.

If pit bulls are alleged to be the OMG WORST DOGS EVER, then I’d really, really love to know: what do people suppose makes them so? A game-type pit dog, with a serious, concentrated lineal history for pit fighting is a 35-45lb dog bred to fight other dogs… what makes this animal so absolutely demonic, way over and above a host of other breeds? Why do some people point to pit dogs as murder-minded hellspawn, savagely bent on destruction and willing to rend their owners limb-from-limb with no warning and no provocation whatsoever?
The reason I bring up various guardian breeds is not to suggest that these dogs are more dangerous [thus you shouldn’t worry about pit dogs], it’s to highlight the ill-logic of drawing a parallel between pit-fighting dogs and people-biting dogs.

As it appears you’re now backing out of this characterization, I’m posing the question as a general one, to any poster who wants to seriously contend that pit bulls truly are inherently human-aggressive dogs. You appear to be hinting toward that in the other thread, but I understand now that you’re backing down from that characterization.
That’s not actually enough. Your posts waffle all over the place, though I see upon further review that you’re very careful to never quite come out and say it. You refer to pit dogs as responsible for “carnage” and as having a “terrible rep [for attacking humans]”, you refer to those of us citing reliable research showing no breed to be inherently more dangerous than any other as “apologists”, and you conflate dog-aggression with human-aggression by casually “mentioning” such things side-by-side. You don’t quite get so far as to come right out and say that pit dogs are more likely to harm a human than another breed of dog. You sure as hell tippity-toe all around it, though.

So, direct answer time: do you believe pit dogs to be inherently more dangerous to human beings, or not? Do you conflate a history of breeding for dog-aggression with an increased potential for violence toward other species of animals, including human beings?
You’ll need to help me out here. Why is it silly?
And lastly, though I’ve said this… many times, many ways…

…the main factor in dog attacks (whether it’s violence against another dog, a cat, a human, a pony, or any other living thing) is not genetic, but owner-error.

Sure its always owner error. Strange why pits have so many more owner errors. They are far above other breeds in ratio of dog and people attacks. Maybe they just attract error prone owners. But if you encounter a loose pit ,you are more likely to be in trouble than any other breed. That means something.

[NajaNivea]

@gonzomax

Sure its always owner error. Strange why pits have so many more owner errors. They are far above other breeds in ratio of dog and people attacks.

Oh come now, gonzomax. There’s very little excuse for this. You were in that thread four weeks ago, too. Surely you read this information at least once in the dozen or more times it’s been posted. If you disagree with the CDC and AVMA’s conclusions on the matter, you’ll need to come up with some better justification than “everyone knows”.

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.

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.

@gonzomax

But if you encounter a loose pit ,you are more likely to be in trouble than any other breed.

Cite?
Hint: shystery dog bite attorneys don’t count.

[magellan01]

Any dog can get nasty. And many pit bulls can be wonderful, docile pets. The problem is that when a golden or a setter or a poodle or a collie or a spaniel gets ugly you wind up with some stitches; when a pit bull gets ugly you often wind up with a headline and a funeral.

Pit bulls are not just another dog.

[NajaNivea]

@magellan01

The problem is that when a golden or a setter or a poodle or a collie or a spaniel gets ugly you wind up with some stitches; when a pit bull gets ugly you often wind up with a headline and a funeral.

I realize this is a pervasive belief, but it’s very simply not true.

The severity of injuries by breed differs greatly, however, with American Bulldogs, Dalmatians, Standard Dachshunds, English Bulldogs and Lhasa Apsos delivering the most severe injuries.

…with the caveat that breed reports made by dog bite victims are always suspect. Certainly some of those Lhasas and Dauchshunds might have been pit bulls in disguise.

[magellan01]

@NajaNivea

I realize this is a pervasive belief, but it’s very simply not true.

Says who? Your “study”?:

The five top breeds involved in bite incidents in the study, which aims to challenge breed bans for dogs like Pit Bulls,

Please. Now why don’t you get me all those headlines of golden retrievers killing people.

[NajaNivea]

@magellan01

Says who? Your “study”?:

Please.

Um… not real sure why you think it’s “my” study, but okay. I’ll bite. Do you have any actual evidence that their results are flawed, or do you just not like them?

Now why don’t you get me all those headlines of golden retrievers killing people.

Okay. How about a lab puppy, are they dangerous? How about a pomeranian?

Any dog is capable of killing a person in the right circumstances. By far the single overwhelmingly consistent factor in fatal dog attacks is not breed or type, but mishandling by the owner.

Now, why don’t you get me all those reputable cites which will provide some useful, meaningful support for your claim?

Failing that, since we already know no such cites exist, why don’t you start by offering some remotely plausible explanation as to why a medium-sized dog bred to fight other dogs is more inherently dangerous in an attack than any number of much larger, much more powerful, and much more human-aggressive breeds?
Please try to stick to the topic, and please don’t try the “just because other dogs are dangerous doesn’t excuse a pit dog’s potential” quibble, because that’s not the claim I’m making.

[gonzomax]

@NajaNivea

Oh come now, gonzomax. There’s very little excuse for this. You were in that thread four weeks ago, too. Surely you read this information at least once in the dozen or more times it’s been posted. If you disagree with the CDC and AVMA’s conclusions on the matter, you’ll need to come up with some better justification than “everyone knows”.

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.
Cite?
Hint: shystery dog bite attorneys don’t count.

You guys claim on one hand there is no way of knowing whether the dogs are deep in their DNA pit bulls. How do you know they aren’t/
Pit owners are like gun lovers loudly proclaiming how safe they are. Then claiming that the incidents were not pits and if they were it couldn’t be the breed. Then it has to be the owner. Anything but the breed. Except many studies that show the overwhelming incidents of Pit Bulls on top of the bite lists, were backed by vets or people who are in field like Humane Society techs… The lists were compiled by pros just to avoid the weak protestations of pit owners.

[NajaNivea]

@gonzomax

Then it has to be the owner. Anything but the breed.

Right. It’s always the owner. The only consistent factor across the board in dog bite fatality incidents is mismanagement, whether the dog in question was a malamute, a rottweiler, a pit bull, or a pomeranian.

Except many studies that show the overwhelming incidents of Pit Bulls on top of the bite lists, were backed by vets or people who are in field like Humane Society techs… The lists were compiled by pros just to avoid the weak protestations of pit owners.

Oh yeah, all those reputable cites you keep mentioning? Let’s see them. It’ll be interesting, because as we’ve already established, the CDC and the AVMA do not believe any such reputable statistics to exist. They also confidently assert that the single overwhelming common factor is mismanagement of the dog: particularly unattended, free-roaming dogs, and dogs on chains. These factors are consistent, breed is not.

“Weak protestations of pit owners”? Does that include the “weak protestations” of the CDC and AVMA?

[Blake]

@gonzomax

You guys claim on one hand there is no way of knowing whether the dogs are deep in their DNA pit bulls. How do you know they aren’t/

This is just an argument from ignorance.

[independentminded]

@Whack-a-Mole

As been repeatedly noted in such threads as this any dog can be “mean” and Pit Bull type dogs are not especially mean and in fact rank better temperament-wise than many other breeds not considered to be especially dangerous.

As with many things it is the owner that makes most of the difference. A well trained, well socialized AmStaff (for example) is a very pleasant dog and a good family dog.

Problem is the sorts of people who want to look “tough” and want a badass dog are not likely to socialize their dog well and perhaps encourage its more aggressive instincts. More, especially if they want a dog for dog fights, the Pit Bull types of dog are a favorite because they excel at the task better than most other breeds. Also, if a Pit Bull type dog attacks they as a breed tend to be more tenacious. Thus stopping the attack can be more problematic.

These add up to giving those breeds a bad rap which is unfortunate.

There’s a reason why pitbulls are often chosen by people who wish to look tough and to own a badass dog; First, it is in their DNA, which is a cross between a regular bulldog and a terrier. Secondly, your sentence about Pit Bull dog attacks being more tenacious, due to a combination of physique and temperament is spot-on. They are much more dangerous due to their very strong beartrap-like jaw, which, while it doesn’t lock, it’s much stronger and wider and can clamp down even deeper, penetrating the musculature of its victim. Plus, pitbull’s noses are built back so they can still breath while they clamp down on their victims (who, btw, can be much larger than they are) and suffocate them.

[gonzomax]

@Blake

This is just an argument from ignorance.

The identification was made by Humane Society pros. It was not some guy on the street . But I don’t expect pit fans to concede anything.
Clifton report
America and Canadian people killed by dogs over 24 year period
264 deaths
137 pits and pit mixes-
67 rotts
Identification by Humane Society pros
Pits are extremely capable of doing damage. when a Pit has a bad moment, people get maimed or killed. You can get hurt by a Dachshund if he gets pissed, but not killed.
American dog fatalities
2005 28 57 percent by Pits
2006 30 53 percent by Pits
2007 35 57 percent by Pits
2008 23 65 percent by pits

When someone gets killed by a dog, they have dog professionals in charge.

[NajaNivea]

@independentminded

There’s a reason why pitbulls are often chosen by people who wish to look tough and to own a badass dog; First, it is in their DNA, which is a cross between a regular bulldog and a terrier. Secondly, your sentence about Pit Bull dog attacks being more tenacious, due to a combination of physique and temperament is spot-on. They are much more dangerous due to their very strong beartrap-like jaw, which, while it doesn’t lock, it’s much stronger and wider and can clamp down even deeper, penetrating the musculature of its victim. Plus, pitbull’s noses are built back so they can still breath while they clamp down on their victims (who, btw, can be much larger than they are) and suffocate them.

Nonsense. Your whole post reads like a laundry list of pit bull myths. At least you got the “no locking jaw” bit right.
Let’s take this piece by piece, shall we? First off, are you… serious? “‘Badass’ is in their DNA, which is a cross between a regular bulldog and a terrier”? Why is a bulldog and terrier cross badass down to their DNA in a way that, say, a 100lb dog bred to attack human beings is not? Why would a bulldog and terrier mix be more fundamentally badass than, oh, I don’t know, a dog bred to fight wolves?

Now, as for their “very strong beartrap-like jaw”, is it more beartrap-like than the jaws of these dogs, bred to clamp down on 500lb wild boar and not let go 'til death do us part? Are their jaws bigger and stronger, their noses more recessed than these dogs, mastiffs? Are their heads stronger and wider than all of these dogs? Because a fair number of those breeds are two to three times as large as pit dogs, with in some cases identically-shaped heads. How come a pit bull’s head is somehow built for maximum carnage, and this dog’s is not?
You assert that a pit dog’s nose is “built back”, bullshit. Prognasthism is a trait of brachycephalic dogs like Boxers and Bulldogs. The UKC standard for pit dogs calls for an underbite as a* serious fault.* See the dog in that photo? Does his nose look “set back” to you? Here are very famous historic pit dogs. Do their noses look “set back” to you?

Contrary to the unmitigated urban legend crap spewed in your post, pit dogs do not have a bite any stronger than any other breed of dog, and though they are tenacious, they are no more tenacious than any other high-drive working breed. There is no reputable research to support a claim that a pit dog has a bite force higher than any other breed. Dr. Barr of National Geographic did a small test to measure relative bite force in different species of animals, and though the sample sizes are too small for definitive answers, the results were as follows:
Crocodiles: 2,500lbs PSI
Hyenas: 1000lbs
Snapping Turtles: 1000lbs
Lions: 600lbs
White Sharks: 600lbs
The three breeds of dogs tested, a GSD, a Rottweiler, and an APBT averaged 320lbs PSI. The pit dog came in *last * of the three breeds tested.

@gonzomax

The identification was made by Humane Society pros. It was not some guy on the street . But I don’t expect pit fans to concede anything.
Clifton report…
When someone gets killed by a dog, they have dog professionals in charge.

Haha, you mean, this Humane Society, the one that puts out this informational flyer?
“When someone gets killed by a dog, they have dog professionals in charge”? What does that mean?

Please try to keep up, gonzomax. The Clifton report has been debunked ad nauseum ten ways to Tuesday in every pit thread that comes along.

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.

Emphasis mine.

[NajaNivea]

@gonzomax

The identification was made by Humane Society pros. It was not some guy on the street .

…Wait,* what? * I just realized what you were saying here. Dogs in the Clifton report weren’t identified by “Humane Society pros”, they were identified by *the dog bite victims themselves. * That’s what makes it such *utterly useless crap. *

Furthermore, “Humane Society pros” are no better at identifying mixed-breed dogs by phenotype than anyone else. In fact, they fail with rates we’d call “gross incompetence” in any other field.

A short report in press in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science indicates low agreement between the identification of breeds of dogs by adoption agencies and DNA identification.7 The dogs in this study were of unknown parentage and had been acquired from adoption agencies. In only a quarter of these dogs was at least one of the breeds proposed by the adoption agencies also detected as a predominant breed by DNA analysis. (Predominant breeds were defined as those comprised of the highest percentage of a DNA breed make-up.) In 87.5% of the adopted dogs, breeds were identified by DNA analyses that were not proposed by the adoption agencies. A breed must have been detected at a minimum of 12.5% of a dog’s make-up to be reported in the DNA analysis.

7. V. Voith, E. Ingram, K Mitsouras, et al, "Comparison of Adoption Agency Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, July 2009.

[NajaNivea]

Oh, and just as a shoutout to LHOD who may or may not be lurking, if you want to come on in and try your “nuanced argument” again, I’d be more than happy to demonstrate a second time why your claims are unsupported by science… though I think we did a pretty thorough job of it four weeks ago.
Here, for example, are my last few responses to you, which garnered no response then.

I bring this up because in the parent thread, LHOD expressed the feeling that I had dismissed his claims out of hand, or had woefully misunderstood him. I’d hate to think I had not done my job adequately, so rest assured** LHOD** I’m absolutely more than happy to revisit and explore the delicate nuances of your argument, any time you like.

[gonzomax]

Actually Pit owners would debunk the Clifton Report because it disagrees with their emotionally held beliefs. I recognize that pit owners will concede nothing but the truth is there are some characteristics of pits that appeal to people who should not have any dog. They buy them, breed them, mistreat them and unleash them on the neighborhood. Would a normal well treated pit be dangerous. Maybe not, but i can not tel, the difference. Sure they are big and strong and fearless. But the ones I encounter running free are not well trained pets. The ones I meet in the park are not being controlled by the owners. That is the facts that we deal with. The one we encounter may well be a loose fighting dog. If we see a beagle running free ,our first reaction is to see if we can help it. A loose pit will be shunned for logical personal safety reasons. It is simply not the same thing. A loose rott will engender the same reaction. A dog that is capable of doing severe damage will scare you if it is loose. It is a correct reaction .

[Contrapuntal]

@gonzomax

Actually Pit owners would debunk the Clifton Report because it disagrees with their emotionally held beliefs.

Even conceding your point, what difference does it make *why *something is debunked? Do you know what debunk means?

The Clifton report is useless. There is no way to verify the identifications, and no way to know how large the population of specific dog breeds is.

[NajaNivea]

Is the AVMA controlled by a secret cabal of pit owners? What about the CDC?

As for the rest of your post, you may be surprised to hear that I agree with it in its (near) entirety. The one point of contention I have is with your ultimate conclusion… that this is somehow the fault of the *breed *of the dog. You spent the entire post describing all the behaviors to which very nearly all severe and fatal dog attacks are directly attributable, summed up: “people who should not have any dog”. These same people would not be raising stable, well-socialized, obedience trained huskies or Australian shepherd mixes, either, would not be keeping them contained and under control, or spay and neuter them.
This is like claiming some particular type of car is dangerous because the types of people who tend to like them drive them recklessly.

We believe the same things about loose, unattended, poorly socialized and untrained dogs. The main difference between you and me is that I am every bit as cautious about handling a loose Husky or Dauchshund or Cocker Spaniel, because I don’t fool myself about the potential these dogs have to bite, or to inflict damage if they do. I don’t know if that stray is half Chow and potentially very volatile, or with herding breed background and thus potentially inclined to be mouthy or snappish… because I can’t read its DNA, nor do I know anything about its particular history, whether it’s been socialized or not, how reactive it might be in stressful situations, and so on and so forth.

I just have a lot more experience handling random-source dogs than most people. In any case, the consistent factor overall in the vast, overwhelming majority of dog bite cases is not that it is “scary looking”. The consistent factor is mismanagement. Additionally, 80% of bites inflicted upon children were caused by either the family dog, or a friend’s dog. This brings us back around to the discussion about how you cannot relax your vigilance, even around friendly, stable, familiar dogs.

Dog bites are a big problem. Look at the numbers:

* About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.
* Almost one in five of those who are bitten :a total of 885,000: require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries.
* In 2006, more than 31,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs. 

Dog bite fatalities are so statistically insignificant as to be considered a “freak occurrence”. According to the CDC: “Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten.” Your inclination to casually handle a stray beagle is far… far more likely to get you injured than your concerns over a freak pit bull mauling. Beagles are famously “bitey” dogs. Of course it’s natural to be fearful of a dog capable of doing severe damage, the catch is… you’re pointing to the least important factor in using phenotype to determine whether or not a dog is “capable of doing severe damage”.

[whole_bean]

@NajaNivea

Beagles are famously “bitey” dogs.

[Homer Simpson] I call the big one “Bitey.” [/Homer Simpson]