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.
I do alot of work and give a fair amount of donations to a animal rescue facility that fits thru about 400 dogs per year. Pit bulls have without question been the most likely to be aggressive out of all the dogs that file thru. We get many other aggressive dogs but the pits are the only ones that stand out.
This may be due to their strength or due to the above average likelihood of them being raised in aggressive environments. There are also nice pits but regardless I am completely against breeding them and more so, there is no logical argument to be made breed them.
I didn't read the article the commenter linked, just OPs link, and it's the same thing that happens with many different "let's ban this arguments." People get swept up and hyped on common sentiment fear, and find any "article" that supports their viewpoint, because their opinion is now a popular opinion, therefore they're right.
I do think that there are some breeds where caution is needed, but much of that ties back into people having certain breeds that aren't right for them. Pits are high energy dogs that require a lot of exercise, and when they don't get that exercise, they do dumb shit. Similarly, a 125 pound person probably shouldn't be walking a 100 pound dog of any breed, as an owner needs to be able to control their animal if something happens.
I have a Staffador (Staffordshire mixed with chocolate lab). She is extremely high energy, can jump a good 4' in the air, and loves to play bite/wrestle. It's been a long road getting her jumping and aggressive behavior under control, but you're more likely to get properly bit by our plotthound with PTSD.
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.
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.
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.
They're all intentionally flawed because the people that spew this horseshit always conveniently leave out per capita statistics and the fact that pit bull breeds, as far as they're typically defined with APBT's and Staffordshire terriers, are far more populous than any other breed.
When you actually look at the numbers per capita bullies are not even as "dangerous" as things like German shephers, rottweilers, dobermans, or several other breeds nobody wants to ban.
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.
First off, you'd need to also factor in the percentage of large dogs, as no matter how vicious a toy breed or even medium sized dog is, it isn't going to have a high fatal bite count. So out of the 36% of dog households that have a large dog, pitt ownership might be more than 6% of the total.
Then again, we need to look at other factors as well.
Maybe 70% of rescue dogs are pitts and 100% of fatal bites were from rescues? (Or vice versa, that 100% of fatal bites were from rescues and 70% of the rescues that went on to bite were pitts, which is a more subtle but still very different picture of events which might reflect fairly narrow causal environmental factors like prior fight training.)
Without the additional layers of data, the best we can do is draw potentially misleading conclusions around causative factors when we barely have correlative ones.
And the ways in which this could be dangerous in terms of social policy is if actions are taken around the mythos of it being a breed specific trait, it not being that, and then unexpected outcomes occurring, such as a popularity shift towards an even more dangerous breed as pitt ownership declines or ignoring or even exacerbating underlying causal relationships to environmental factors.
We've seen how bad data science applied to human crime rates can lead to supremely (supremacist?) misleading claims around the contributing factors with an over representation of demographic data that's simply correlative to underlying causative environmental factors.
So if we both know full well that saying "XYZ demographic is 2-3x more likely to commit violent crimes so we should get rid of XYZ demographic from the population" is an outrageously bad faith argument predicated on poor data analysis, I'm curious what you think is materially different about the data evaluation aspects that you support the analogous claim here?
Pitbulls were specifically bred as fighting dogs to fight and kill other dogs in pits.
Don't apply human logic to dog breeding. Dogs are specifically bred by humans to have specific traits. Humans are not bred to have specific traits.
And at least one study I've read showed that bad ownership and rescue status only account for 20% of dog attacks, so most attacks are not a result of bad ownership.
The closest I could find to the study you mentioned was the following:
https://positively.com/articles/fatal-dog-bites-share-common-factors/
Where yes, it says that in 21% of cases the dog was subject to abuse and neglect (one out of five is a rather large number by the way).
That same study says that in 37.5% of cases the owner had previously 'mismanaged' the dog in the past.
And then you have numbers like in 76.2% of cases the dog was not kept as a family pet.
Or that in 84.4% of cases the dog was not spayed or neutered.
Including this gem:
Interestingly, the breeds of the dogs involved in fatal attacks could only be identified in 18% of the cases. Often times, the media's report of the dog's breed conflicted with animal control reports.
So please, tell me more about how we shouldn't be looking at environmental factors because dogs aren't people and with dogs it's all about breed and nothing else...
Edit: Ah, we also have this study's results:
Frequency distributions revealed that 100% of the owners of High Risk dogs had either one criminal conviction or traffic citation. Furthermore, 30% of the High Risk Cited dog owners had at least 5 criminal convictions or traffic citations (range 1-37) in comparison to the 1% of owners of Low Risk Licensed dog owners (range 1-6).
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.
I think the occurrence is somewhat more. While some smaller dogs may be aggressive and are aggressive, they also tend to learn rapidly they do not have the size to be aggressive. Thus that trait becomes less common overall.
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.
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.
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.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.
That came shortly after videos emerged of a dog attack that injured an 11-year-old girl named Ana Paun in Birmingham, England.
Noel King, host of Vox’s daily news podcast Today, Explained, wanted to know more about why this dog breed is so controversial.
It was all kind of folklore, myth, and media sensationalism — and that gave me a window to talk about a lot of other different subjects, using the pit bull as a lens.
Because they were popular and they were associated with these social changes, people believed that they bit more and that they were kind of poisonous and they transmitted rabies.
In the early ’90s in Boston, there was a pilot program where ownership of a pit bull was used as kind of an excuse for a stop and frisk with law enforcement.
The original article contains 1,944 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 91%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
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.
One thing that bears mention is that dogs are humankind's best friend. They have a special and sacrosanct relationship to humans; in our evolution, in our history, in our law, in our communities, in our homes, and daily in our families. I'm skeptical of any government action intended to interfere with a person's right to keep whatever dog as they fit, absent inhumane treatment. I view breed bans the same way I view bans on oral or anal sex,, homosexual sex, gay marriage, interracial marraige, and abortion: so central to family decisionmaking, and private, and personal as to be beyond the government's reach. In other words, don't come talking about banning breeds and then say any hypocritical bullshit about how you love small government, freedom, or liberty. Like if you have ever said "Don't Tread on Me!" and you want to ban people having dog they want, you need to stfu because you sound so obviously stupid.
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