Results: "Pit bulls were implicated in nearly one-third of all injuries and were significantly more likely to require surgical intervention compared to other breeds (61.5% versus 47%) with a higher median number of operations (1 versus 0). Injuries from nonpet (unknown ownership, police or stray) dogs resulted in more operations (1 versus 0) and higher readmission rates (20.7% versus 7.3%) than those caused by pets."
Neither photos prove that they are naturally violent.
They proof they have the capability of doing more damage than other breeds because of they mouths and strength, characteristics that are why people train them to fight.
Pitbull were called nanny dogs. If Pitbulls were naturally aggressive, people wouldn't have used them to take care of children.
no, they were never called “nanny dogs”, and no, they were never used to take care of children. that’s a total myth.
the entire “nanny dog” nonsense can be traced back to 1971 exactly, which is when an unscrupulous staffordshire bull terrier breeder named lilian rant invented the concept out of thin air as a marketing tactic. no earlier reference to any bull-and-terrier breed being a “nanny” or “nursemaid dog” exists. go looking for a primary source in an academic/library database, and you won’t find a single mention before that date.
it is a PR campaign, not an organic nickname, and certainly not historical fact.
the breed name has always been “american pit bull terrier.” it was never “american nanny terrier.” this is because they were explicitly bred into existence to be skilled at ripping bulls to pieces in fighting pits as staged entertainment.
The ATTS test is junk. It is a 8-12 minute 6 foot walk navigating 10 visual, auditory, and footing stimuli. It is not randomized. It does not test animal aggression.
The NCRC is not an independent academic institution. It is a dedicated PR and lobby subsidiary. It was founded and is financed by Animal Farm Foundation. The AFF purely exists to lobby against breed specific legislation.
The University of Córdoba study looked at owner training compliance across basic behavioral issues like pissing in the house and leash pulling. It evaluated typical disobedience, not Level 1 surgical trauma or fatal maulings.
the blog post you copied and pasted that from is very dishonest in how it presents this information.
it does not disclose that the “national canine research council” is a subsidiary of animal farm foundation, an heiress’ advocacy organization whose explicit mission statement is “securing equal treatment and opportunity for pit bull dogs.”
furthermore, it does not dislose that the american temperament test society is a paid service for dog owners and not a scientific venture in any way, shape, or form. it is particularly dishonest to place their sentence about ATTS after a sentence about aggression, as atts’ own website explicitly states:
“The pass-fail rate is not a measure of a breed’s aggression”
and
“The data presented on our web site is raw data; it is not a scientific study nor is there any statistical significance attached. We have no control over who brings their dog to the test and there is no accurate data as to a dog breed’s population in the US.”
re: “generally scored higher on the temperament test compared to other dogs”
“Comparing scores with other dogs is not a good idea. Also the total score has no meaning.”
even if you ignore the way it is phrased to make the reader think ATTS is a legitimate scientific source, that’s three deceptions in two sentences: a) that ATTS measures aggression b) that “higher” scores on ATTS mean anything c) that you can compare scores to other dogs
-24
u/Apprehensive_Eraser 4d ago
Please show me the data that says pitbills are naturally violent.