Pitbulls are responsible for more human attacks than any other breed.
Yeah frankly the statistics are pretty conclusive. You can argue about bad owners all you'd like, and theres probably at least some truth there (if you're an asshole who wants a violent dog, you're of course going to choose a breed with a reputation for violence), but it's clear to any unbiased observer that pit bulls have a high tendency towards violence.
No one is advocating that we round up all the pit bulls and euthenize them (no sane person anyways), but that we stop breeding new ones. Frankly there needs to be a lot more regulation on dog breeding, besides violent breeds, there's no reason we should be breeding more (as an example) pugs, who are doomed to spend their whole lives suffocating just because some people like their squashed faces
I'm not trying to nitpick and start an argument with you but the guy you're replying to has conflated two very different things. Likelihood to bite and ability to damage with bite. You are most likely to be bitten by a Labrador retriever. You are most likely to be fucked up by a Pitbull. I will not deny that pit bulls have the ability to fuck you up. Just like I won't deny the ability of a German Shepherd to rip a fist-sized chunk out of your leg.
Furthermore he is pretending to quote with a sense of authority however reading his own linked article will disprove his claim. The number one identified breed with the ability to cause damage was "unidentified". The article claims the number two breed was "Pit Bull" which is not a singular breed and encompasses many subreads. The third was "mixed" fourth was German Shepherd.
I have owned many pits over the years. We currently own one that is 25 percent husky and 75 percent pitt that looks nothing like a pit he came out looking like a hound everybody loves him always asked to come up and pet. At the same time they are afraid and scared of our smaller mutt dog with a blocky head and call it a pit, but he's just a mix of retrekver shepherd and terrier.
Yeah frankly the statistics are pretty conclusive.
From the article:
Pit bulls were responsible for the highest percentage of reported bites across all the studies (22.5%), followed by mixed breeds (21.2%), and German shepherds (17.8%).
"Mixed breeds" are just barely behind pit bulls. That's hardly conclusive.
"mixed breeds" just means any dog that isn't purebred, which is the vast majority of dogs, so it doesn't say much that they account for a lot of attacks
Great, so why isn't there a huge outcry about mixed breed dogs? I mean, oh my god, they're essentially as dangerous as pit bulls.
Because "mixed breed" dogs aren't a breed? That's my whole point.
What you're arguing is basically equivalent to this "psychopaths account for 26% of murderers, closely followed by people with brown eyes at 25%, why aren't we doing anything about the brown eyed menace!"
Lumping all mixed breed dogs just inflates the numbers, because - again - the vast majority of dogs are mixed breed.
Put another way, because I can tell you're having a hard time grasping this - mixed breed dogs account for 53% of all dogs in the US according to the AKC. Pit bulls account for just a hair under 6% (5.8, if you want the specifics). That means according to the stats in the article, any given pit bull is 10x more likely to bite than any given mixed breed dog.
Get it?
Because "mixed breed" dogs aren't a breed? That's my whole point.
“Pit bull” isn’t a breed either.
American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed. It’s one of several collective breeds that people typically refer to when they use pit bull. The others being American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and sometimes the American Bulldog.
That term is also often used for mixed dogs that may have some amount of one of those breeds or that shares physical characteristics with one of those breeds, usually head and/or body shape.
Anecdotally, I have a neighbor whose neighbor on the other side called the police on him for having a “dangerous breed” dog. They told the police he had a pit bull. It was a boxer.
That's a fair point, but "pit bull" being comprised of several sub-breeds isn't even kind of the same sort of umbrella as "literally every dog that isn't a pure bred"
And your neighbor being an idiot really doesn't have any relevance on the discussion
A pitbull isn't even a breed of dog. Grouping them all together as a breed is like grouping together all dogs considered hounds. It's an umbrella term for the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, American bulldog, Boston terrier, Boxer, Bull terrier, Bullmastiff, English bulldog, French bulldog, and Staffordshire bull terrier.
So essentially statistics on pitbull bites are either completely flawed, or just flat out wrong.
Vox did a very nice piece on pitbull stigma that changed my mind about them.
That is simply not true. More injuries are attributed to “pit bull type” breeds but that is far different from “more human attacks.” It’s also wildly tainted since it’s based on self reporting and any time it’s not an obvious German shepherd, husky or golden (etc) if someone can’t quite guess what it is most people are predisposed to assuming pit bull because of bigots like you that just hate the breed.
Small dogs like chihuahuas are far more likely to attack humans than pit bulls, although serious injury is less likely for smaller breeds. Even that is skewed based on human factors and handling since small dogs like chihuahuas are often carted around and over handled with complete disregard for their comfort or tolerance level because they’re “pocket sized” and too many assholes have no problem just picking them up whether they want it or not.
The only thing your link shows is that the majority of unknown large dogs that caused injuries were assumed to be pit bulls by one person or another.
The only thing your link shows is that the majority of unknown large dogs that caused injuries were assumed to be pit bulls by one person or another.
FTA:
Essig also explained why “unknown” tops the list of breeds: “We often didn’t know what type of dog was involved in these incidents, [so] we looked at additional factors that may help predict bite tendency when breed is unknown.” Those additional factors included weight and head shape. The findings showed that dogs with short, wide heads who weighed between 66 and 100 pounds were the most likely to bite.
So if a dog is 10% pit bull, 20% German shepherd, 10% beagle 15% husky, 20% lab, 5% golden and 10% Belgian Malinois it counts towards “pit bulls” but no other breed? Got it. It’s almost like another form of historical discrimination by race said any percentage counts as belonging to the undesired race that is being targeted…
“Of unidentifiable dogs that have average dog characteristics we attributed generic criteria that meet any number of breeds but also fit the specific ones we wanted to target with our predetermined conclusion prior to executing this study. We were able to validate our desired outcome with this specific targeting.” #Science!
So if a dog is 10% pit bull, 20% German shepherd, 10% beagle 15% husky, 20% lab, 5% golden and 10% Belgian Malinois it counts towards “pit bulls” but no other breed? Got it. It’s almost like another form of historical discrimination by race said any percentage counts as belonging to the undesired race that is being targeted…
The fuck?
“Of unidentifiable dogs that have average dog characteristics we attributed generic criteria that meet any number of breeds but also fit the specific ones we wanted to target with our predetermined conclusion prior to executing this study. We were able to validate our desired outcome with this specific targeting.” #Science!
Not what the article actually said.
I'm glad you took time to take a nuanced opinion on the article that you don't seem to have read. To be honest it sounds like you didn't read your own article. "unknown” tops the list. This is because dog breeds aren't identified by genetics a cop shows up says oh it looked like a pitbull it had a blocky head and it's automatically a pit until DNA tests prove otherwise.
I read the article. It’s the same old excuses about “It’s the owner not the breed.” And “Breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior in dogs.”
Those statements just aren’t true. Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits.
There was also a study done that proved breeding aggressive animal lines made their progeny even more aggressive. And docile more docile.
And there it is people Good old American racism.
I'm certain you've also followed the Russian experiment where they managed to take wild foxes and domesticate them in under 50 generations and now you can adopt one as a pet. So what you're telling me is that a dog that has been with humanity for over 10,000 years and then went through a period of roughly 300 years of pit fighting is irrepidly damaged but the fox that went through 15,000 years of being a fox It's just magically now perfect pet in under 100 years. And you're telling me that it's genetics and not nurturing and raising the animal that has an impact okay...
Sorry, can you clarify what part of OPs post is racism? Genuinely struggling with that connection.
The idiot I'm replying to believes that The genome of a animal directly correlates to that animals behavior potential for intelligence and general demeanor.
Now where have I heard before that someone's genetic makeup makes it so that they are not qualified to the same rights and privileges as the others. If this person believes that the parentage of a animal determines how a animal will live and act.... That's eugenics.
Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”
To clarify, you are directly equating dog breeds with different races of humans so you can paint op as a eugenics apologist, and win an online argument about dogs? Did I get that right??
You're missing the huge difference that humans arent selectively bred for specific physiological and behavioral traits reinforced over many generations. Theres no human race thats 10 times as small as they used to be with bulging eyes and breathing problems.
I mean, to my understanding, those domestic foxes, while tame, are still not quite so perfect of pets as animals that have been bred for longer like dogs are. Though there is no reason it can't be both, while a dog raised to be aggressive will probably be aggressive, and one raised well should be far less likely to be, it's not fair to say that there is no genetic basis for friendliness and aggression, else there would be no need for domestication in the first place. A lot of selective breeding can be done in century, so the past few centuries of what an animal has been selectively bred for probably matter a bit more than the centuries before that, to a point anyway. I doubt anyone is really arguing that pit bulls are irreparably damaged as a whole either, but if an animal has been bred for aggression for awhile, undoing that is going to require breeding for the reverse, or crossbreeding with another line that does not have that trait and selecting offspring that do not display it, or similar.
I'm not really sure what stance to take on pitbulls and similar breeds myself, I've known some people with rather nice ones and it seems to me that any law targeting a specific dog breed is going to be somewhat impractical given that breeds are "fuzzy" categories with ill defined edges, not clear and sharply defined, so determining what animals are close to pitbulls but are not quite, and which are considered to be pitbulls, but barely, is going to be a very difficult line to reliably draw.
For the data to be useful it needs to be normalized.
What's the rate of bites per number of that breed in the country?
The problem is that breed ownership numbers are only drawn from voluntary club registrations, which isn't particularly representative and going to be biased against low income owners and rescues.
Did pit bulls bite the most often because they are the most violent, or just because they are very common? Are there environmental factors, such as pit bulls being more commonly a rescue dog and rescue dogs being more likely to bite?
Are there breeds that are much more prone to biting that just aren't as popular in ownership such that absolute numbers on bites doesn't reveal them?
The article is 1,000% right that the existing numbers and studies suck and are next to worthless.
Edit: Apparently 84% of fatal bites are from dogs that aren't spayed or neutered, and 76% are by dogs that aren't kept as a family pet which are the types of environmental factors that might be quite a bit more relevant than breed, especially given that only 20% of dogs aren't spayed or neutered and yet represent 84% of fatal bites. Also, glossed over in the link I was responding to is that 82% of the fatal bites are an "Unknown" breed, which is wildly higher than one might have expected.
Edit 2: Additional resources - apparently the data point from the commenter below is from a poor 2000 study that relied on tenuous breed identification and the research world has been trying to correct ever since, with the 2012 study cited above being by one of the same authors of the 2000 study and presenting a very different picture, and more recent research such as:
Pit bulls are estimated to only be about 6% of the dog popualtion, and account for 70% of fatal bites.
By your logic pitbulls would have to be 70% of owned dogs, and let me tell you walking around 7 in 10 dogs are not pitbulls.
If you don't think that dog breed is a good predictor of behavior, you have not spent enough time around dogs.
For thousands of years dogs have been bred for specific purposes. These behaviors are innate. They do not need to be taught. Sure, you can train them to be better, but the behaviors are written all over their genes
My grandparents had shepherds. The dogs had never seen sheep or been taught anything about herding, but they would attempt to herd all my cousins when they were children, then get agitated when the children wouldn't herd. Here's some puppies doing it
Here's some pointers pointing. They have not been taught this (and frankly I can't imagine even training most dog breeds to do that)
Here's a boxer dog boxing. Here's one spinning. They aren't taught this, and they all do it.
There's hounds rolling in stink. There's sight hounds and smell hounds. There's retrievers retrieving, being irresistibly drawn to water, and carrying around things very gently. There's huskies being extremely energetic and vocal.
I could go on.
Do you really think that dogs that have been bred to fight other dogs to the death and bear enormous amounts of pain (game) before giving up are not dangerous? You're mental.
Sure they're sweet to their owners. That's because people who breed animals for blood sports are not the kind of people who would have trouble immediately removing from the gene pool any of their animals that are disloyal.
It's not like it's just pitbulls. Dobermans are implicated too. They're guard dogs but for humans rather than predator animals.
People with agendas can play all kinds of statistical games to show what they want to show. In the scientific world, these kinds of tricks stand out. That's why any non-trivial summary statistic is useless without a large text explaining the methodology.
This is one of those things that is so obvious it boggles my mind that people even question it.
Of course dogs that are bred to murder are dangerous.
It's not just the genetic predisposition (which is arguably made worse with bully XLs due to so many of the lineage being bred from a small number of very aggressive specimens). It's the size of them. They are orders of magnitude more dangerous than most other breeds when they go feral.
There is also definitely a factor at play where the sort of person to want a scary looking dog is also the sort of person who's less likely to properly socialise and train them. But it's mental to argue that say, a 7-foot tall gladiator is no more dangerous than a 5-foot tall gardener. Size and bite strength matters.
I do think there are more humane options available than just destroying them all. Muzzles in public; all dogs should really be on a lead in a public space, but especially v strong breeds; mandated training and chipping as a prerequisite of owning a dog; tougher laws that reflect if you own a deadly weapon on 4 legs that causes harm or death, you are responsible as if you carried out the attack yourself.
What a load. Most ppl (including you) don't even know which dogs were breed for fighting. Anita's (yes doge dog) were breed for bear hunting and fighting in the 1600s. Same for shar-peis.
Practically every dog breed at one point was breed for fighting.
Esit: I stand corrected
That's quite the non sequitur.
I think you meant Akitas, but it autocorrected. The doge dog is actually a Shiba Inu, which are much smaller than Akitas
Doge is not an akita, she's a shiba inu.
Statistically pit bulls and closely related breeds are responsible for the most attacks. Anyone bringing human race into this is silly.
I don't think the occurrence of attacks are more, just the severity. It's probably less likely a chihuahua attack causes enough damage to warrant a report. Pitbulls are dangerous, not because they're more prone to attack, but because when they do, they cause a lot more physical damage.
people who cannot control their dog when outside, should rethink owning said dog.
It's more complicated than that. If your can't stop your lab from licking a stranger to death, that's completely different from not being able to stop your pitbull or doberman from mauling a toddler.
Yes, people should be responsible dog owners, but only certain breeds regularly snap and kill or maim.
the thing about prejudice in the title is absolutely, deeply, fantastically true. I, too, think that it's a prejudice to believe that is possible to control animals bred with the precise intent to maul.
When you may not be able to get homeowners insurance because of the dog you own, it's not likely to be an issue is prejudice. They do everything by statistics.
Is it animal cruelty if i simply do not get a pitbull? If a group of people dont get one? At what point does it become cruel to breed less and less pitbulls?
Pretty sure that's the opposite of cruelty mate. Dogs need a loving home and if you can't take care of it then we shouldn't make more. More people should spay and neuter but they don't.
So lets stop breeding them
I'm not breeding them their dogs they fuck.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News