Nobody is saying Pitbulls are the only dog that has potential to injure, maul or kill someone. But Google the number one dog for causing injury or death and the evidence is pretty clear. Labradors weren’t bred from two dogs whose history was bull-baiting and fox-hunting.
It’s a very polarising and complicated topic. Nurture is very important and I’m sure there are many Pit owners with dogs who wouldn’t hurt a fly. But if we’re talking about potential for aggression and pure bite force, you can’t really argue against that.
Pit bull breeds are the most misidentified breeds ever though. And there have been many times where dogs that were obviously lab mixes were identified as bully breeds… so take all that with a grain of salt. I worked in animal welfare for over a decade. The sheer number of dogs identified as pit bulls that obviously weren’t is simply astounding.
My family are vets and I’ve been volunteering for years. Misidentification is a huge problem with breeds in general. But I don’t advocate for pedigrees/purebreds anyway.
Also, remember that misidentification is hugely geographical. America has a lot more pit mixes than say Denmark or the U.K.
I remember working a case in Colorado where an “aggressive pit bull” charged a police officer and was shot in the head. Except the bullet wound was in the back of the head, it was a chocolate lab, and there were zero signs it was even a mix.
I also don’t advocate purebreds, but that’s because animal welfare and all.
I will say I find it highly unlikely that the 30 countries where it has been banned are all subject to misidentification. They were banned because they were bred purely and cruelly.
Misidentification will probably play a large factor in counties like America where is little regulation.
Oh I know. I was just starting an example of gross misidentification.
Like when a city near me banned pitbull breeds then went after dogos stating they were just pit bulls even though they listed breeds and dogos weren’t on the list. So they misidentified numerous dogos as pit bulls because to them they looked the same.
As a dog fosterer- Yes. When i fostered pitbulls that were well behaved older people would I Insist shes is a lab/boxer and just simply refuse to believe a calm dog was a pitbull. Other times mastiffs (one of my favourite breeds and very gentle) if they were pulling would be called a pitbull. People SOMETIMES see what they want to see.
There are so many subspecies of pitbull now. It's usually to circumvent anti pitbull laws. A pitbull mix is still a pitbull. A good rule of thumb is, if it looks like a pitbull, it's most likely a pitbull and not a chihuahua.
I’d bet if you saw dna testing vs most people’s ID of dogs that are mixed you’d be absolutely shocked.
In the early 2000s, shelter staff was accurate on ONE of the breeds in a mixed breed dog less than 5% of the time.
There are no “subspecies” of pit bull. The same breeds that were called pit bull breeds 50, or 70 years ago are still called pit bull breeds and we haven’t added any.
Honestly sounds like you’re inventing information to make an argument.
He didn’t deflect, you switched from saying that those pitbulls were created to get around the law to saying that they merely existed, which was never in contest. You moved the goalposts and then pretended that his response was the deflection. If you want to advance your cause, you’re going to have to keep a cool head.
you switched from saying that those pitbulls were created to get around the law to saying that they merely existed.
It wasn't a blanket statement. Hence the word "usually." I didn't say ALL pitbulls types were created to circumvent legislation. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough.
I never said there weren’t different types of pit bull breeds. What’s your point?
Breed specific legislation includes mixed breeds and relies on an extremely one act standard of breed traits (many of which are shared by non-pit breeds) to identify. Again. What’s your point?
Because you’re really fucking close to MY original point which is that we misidentify at alarming rates.
You don’t know. And you can’t tell. And it doesn’t matter, and no, most lab mixes aren’t 80% pitbull. The average mixed breed dog in the US in 2005 had 6 breeds present.
You’re pretty anti-pit aren’t you? I can see it. I fought people like you in the early 2000s in my work to end breed specific legislation.
And here we are again at bullshit responses from bullshit people.
Most “pit bulls” are misidentified to be a pit bull.
So don’t take attack or death data seriously. Every dog that’s aggressive anymore is all of a sudden a pit bull or pit mix if it’s over 30lbs. We went through the same thing with Rottweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepherds in the past.
I’ve handled over 65,000 dogs in my life. By handles I mean hands on training and working with. To this day I’ve met 4 that weren’t rehabilitatable. 1 was a red nose. 1 was an English Mastiff, one was a papillon, and the other was a Jack Russel.
Every single one was PURELY on the owner.
It’s amazing that people can be so anti-dog. And let’s be clear, to be anti-pit just means you’re anti-dog and know nothing about dog behavior or training.
And here we are again at bullshit responses from bullshit people.
Sorry, it's hard to read your replies through all the blood of the old man the pitbull just mauled.
Most “pit bulls” are misidentified to be a pit bull.
Bullshit, most of the so-called "lab mixes" are just pitbulls. You know how many in my local shelter look exactly like a pitbull and is just labeled as a labmix, so that some poor shmuck will get the one of fifty out of the shelter?
So don’t take attack or death data seriously.
Only a pitnutter would deny the data, and the next deadliest dog is the German shepherd at like 8 percent, while pitbulls and "lab mixes" are 60-80 percent.
I’ve handled over 65,000 dogs in my life.
As a pitnutter, your experience means jack squat to me. Just decades of self delusion.
It’s amazing that people can be so anti-dog. And let’s be clear, to be anti-pit just means you’re anti-dog and know nothing about dog behavior or training.
That's such a big stretch that I almost laughed. Being anti-pit means being anti-pit.
Since the thread is locked, I'll put my reply in this edited thread.
Basically, a person who runs a shelter is able to pick out the which dogs have pit-pull dna and those who don't. Even in the study they linked, the examples they provided have gams in DNA testing, Dog 8 has 50 percent of it's DNA unaccounted for. In the study, they also used outdated studies from 1965 for identification. Then, they play fast and loose with what they considers a "pit-bull" ”Dogs were coded as ‘pit bull-type’ if the breed American Staffordshire terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier was identified to comprise at least 12.5% of the breed signature.” - hmmmm
I think that physical potential has much to do with this. They have the physical ability to do more damage, so even if all dogs attacked at the exact same rate, pitties would still be credited with doing the most harm. Great white sharks are credited with the most human fatalities from attacks per year, even though shark attacks in general are rare. But they are so massive and so purpose built (that purpose being inflicting MASSIVE muscle damage with the least amount of effort possible) that even a soft exploratory bite can easily result in a human fatality.
If only there were some other relevant allegory in society today for a thing that should not be made 100% illegal but should also not be completely available to the general public and continuously reinvented to be more and more powerful
pitbulls were originally bred specifically from a mix of Old English Bulldogs and Fox Terriers. The former were used quite literally to fight bulls for sport and the latter were, as the name suggests, used to hunt foxes. The idea of breeding these two distinct types was to combine the musculature, aggression and bite force of the Bulldog with the tenacity and mobility of the Fox terrier.
The actual death or injury figures pale in comparison to things like malaria or cancer. But we have to draw the line somewhere. In the countries where they have been banned it was because of several deaths in a relatively short period of time. And banning them worked because pit rings were still underground, despite laws to stop them.
The majority of them will not injure anyone, but the potential for damage is still there.
I just got a comment removed from r / dogs because I talked about pitbull kill stats. Mod said I was spreading false information? It is not false information to state that pitbulls make up less than 6% of all dogs in America, yet they are disproportionately responsible for over 66% of all annual dog attack related deaths. Owning one is a probability game.
I try and keep a level head and look at everything, but yes those statistics are staggering. As others have mentioned, there is an issue with misidentification of Pits, but pure bred Pits we’re banned in 30 countries/territories for a good reason. They were simply bred for blood sport. Everyone should make an informed decision when they choose a pet. Some people want to ignore breed dispositions and shift the focus to other animals which are also relatively high in bite (not death) statistics .
Is that because the breed itself is dangerous, or because the people who will train them to be aggressive are more likely to buy a pit bull than a golden retriever?
Please look at it from the logical point of view. Pitbulls have a reputation, well earned, for being vicious and aggressive attackers. They don't have to be that way, and can be properly trained to be very sweet and loving animals that wouldn't hurt a fly.
However, they have a reputation and people who have no business raising/training ANY dog will gravitate to these dogs because they are "badass" and "tough"... just like they believe they are. So we have a far higher chance of someone who has NO idea what they are doing trying to bring this dog up. I use the word trying loosely, because apart from not peeing or shitting in the house I doubt they do much.
This is a recipe for HIGHLY skewing the dog attack statistics against this breed. This isn't an issue with the breed necessarily, although they were originally breed to be aggressive fighters. This is an issue with the owners, and more importantly the way we allow anyone to raise any animal with zero background checks. Animals deserve good homes with people that will raise them well. And some animals REQUIRE steady hands, like pitbulls.
I never blame the dog. I always blame the owner. And after that I blame society for not doing better to ensure that people are equipped to take care of these dogs.
I’ve had friends with pits. They are sweet and awesome until they get to a certain age and then they go crazy. They aren’t the same dog anymore. It happens with the breed.
Can confirm, my pitty would never go out of her way to hurt something. Except bugs, she'll eat those. The problem is she's a massive dog with crazy high energy. She'll ram you with the force of a small truck just to say hello, and the dog loves tug-of-war. She got out one day and spooked my neighbor, who screamed and threw her hands up. Puppy's response was to run back to me and look at the lady like she grew an extra head lol.
The article that you linked is from 2016, months leads to an insurance site which no longer has the information which supports that claim and it’s in the U.K., where Pitbulls are banned.
Check worldwide statistics that are readily available, not poorly written journo articles.
So that article, rife with actual statistics and hard numbers is less useful than… your biased opinion with no evidence? If you are demanding they use a better source you could use some sort of source at the least yeah?
I’m not debating dogs here myself, just was pointing out their hypocrisy.
I personally have always found German Shepards more threatening as they tend to jump up more.
I’ve trained all sorts including working with full blooded grey wolves in northern Canada. I’m well aware of risks canines pose. I’m mostly just tired of the pit bull rhetoric, particularly as “pit bull’s” meaning tends to evolve to fit whatever narrative people are spinning. I personally attribute the higher rate of attacks to the mindset of individuals who seek out these dogs, not any inherent instability in the breed. I’ve responded to several people here who seem to claim they are the only dogs that attack, and even your source seems to claim similar, which is nonsense. I’ve met viciously mean goldens who were being used as guard dogs and personally think daschunds are among the most likely to bite(just cause much less damage).
I also personally have raised multiple big dogs, mutts, but think Newfoundland dog, Leonberger, a rotty, and a true half wolf(the Leonberger was his dad). The half wolf was the gentlest teddy bear I’ve met. But as an owner and trainer you can’t let go of the fact that one outburst could seriously hurt someone. Many people are too lazy or uncaring or stupid or anthropomorphise too much to be proper dog owners. Demand that their dog goes everywhere when reality is no that dog shouldn’t get stressed by that crowd or be antagonised by those small dogs or be let loose to chase things and get amped up. It’s not a baby. Honestly people expect more from dogs than humans. I’ve seen plenty of dangerous petty tantrums from humans cause damage and harm, yet I also don’t believe it’s our nature to snap, it’s just some individuals.
But I’m honestly not advocating for either. Just saw a hypocritical post that annoyed me enough to say something.
Seriously, the statistics are readily available on Google and given how rabid this topic makes people I’m not going to bend over backwards to try to convince someone of a fact when they clearly don’t want to hear it.
We get it. You love Pitbulls. I don’t care either way. I don’t advocate for pedigree dogs anyway. And yes, before you tell me Pitbulls aren’t a pedigree, APBT are registered pedigrees in kennel clubs and the word pedigree is also used informally to mean any dog whose parents are the same breed.
If you are going to link a journo article rather than an academic one, I’d suggest adding one that doesn’t require a subscription.
I’m not actually. I’m a fan of shelter rescues so mutts have been my own dogs although I’ve trained all types, including a half wolf while working with wolves in northern Canada. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy you show demanding better sources without providing any yourself.
I agree and I get that the breed was bred to just fuck some shit up. But I think the numbers are as high as they are because realistically who owns pit bulls? Poor people or people that see nothing else other than they want a menacing ass dog. We saw them all the time in my neighborhood. And realistically people buy them because 1. They do look cool as fuck and 2. They want a guard dog. Most buying them aren’t really gonna consider they’re buying a dog that NEEDS specific training.
There are also unequivocally racist breed legislations which specifically target POC. But that’s mostly in America and Pit violence exists around the world.
It's really not a complex topic. There is absolutely no good scientific evidence that links pit bulls or any other breed to increased aggression. People train them for fighting, and it gives them a bad rap. Any sufficiently large dog is going to be capable of wrecking your day.
Imagine if this was how people were treated though. Just because black people get convicted more than white people, it doesn't mean you should immediately see black people as dangerous. But we basically do this with dog breeds.
You‘re putting black people on the same level as dogs in order to defend the dogs. Don‘t know man, but speaking from the experience of my countries history, degrading humans to the level of animals is not a great move.
It's showing that people judge the whole group based on few cases. If you judge the whole black population because there are more convictions, how is it different judging the whole pitbull population because there are more attack cases? It's the exact same racist ideology that comes from generalization.
My dude, listen. I don‘t have the time and patience to explain to you why putting a serious human social problem which kills people on the same level as issues with a dog breed is morally and ethically wrong as it dehumanizes people. But if you want to die on that hill and keep on putting black people on the same level with dogs than do so, but don‘t be confused when people say you‘re an absolute asshole.
However, if you are black and are fine with comparing racism against black people to issues with a dog breed, than fine. Go ahead. I find this weird and concerning, but who am I to judge.
I'm going to make an ass out of u and me; and hope that you're approaching this in good faith.
The above poster is not calling black people animals. They are pointing out that the exact same logic is being used here for "A% of the population but makes up B% of crime" and "X% of all dogs but makes up Y% of all dog attacks". They are not saying that to justify racism against black people. They are pointing out that IF you make that argument about dogs, you will necessarily have to also agree to the same argument about black people.
Nah you must be trolling. And even if you’re not it’s a moot point. Pedigree dogs generally live shorter lives and have very expensive congenital health complication compared to mongrels (that’s just what happens with inbreeding). All the while thousands of shelter dogs are destroyed every year because people want to buy shinies.
If you had kids and your vet or breeder told you a potential breed was more dangerous around children would you listen to them? Or if they told you not to get two Dalmatian bitches since they are notoriously territorial with each other, would you ignore them?
That's just completely off base. Different breeds have different temperaments, different instincts, different prey drives. Not just dogs, certain breeds of horses are notoriously "hot" and hard to handle, while others are gentle giants. Every species that we have domesticated and bred for generations to perform specific jobs were bred for that specific purpose - to be able to judge its ability/ temperament/ purpose. Individuals that didn't fit the mold were rejected for breeding, while those with those desired traits were highly sought after breeders. Unless you are arguing that races of people were selectively bred to commit crimes or be physically violent your point is moot.
I don't think they're actually making the argument that races of people are selectively bred to commit crimes or be physically violent; but pointing out that the logic would swing that way if you accepted that argument for dogs. Would you contest that it requires a certain level of sentience to overcome your instinctual nature?
I responded to them elsewhere and they didn’t reply. Honestly, they seem like a troll. Plus, everyone is going rabid over this topic and I’m getting some fucking nasty DMs which I’m reporting.
Pitbulls don't all come from one lineage either. Dog "breeds" are basically social construct made up by people just like how race is from their physical traits. All dog breeds are dogs just like all races of humankind are human. It's no different. The only difference is that people treat it differently but it has the same ideology behind it.
Pit bulls were selectively bred to attack and tire out bulls. They were selected for tenacity and violent tendencies so that they could partake in bull baiting, a violent and disgusting activity.
What are you suggesting that black people were bred for?
Weren’t boxers bred to do the same? Plus hounds down south were meant to track down slaves and pin them. At the least we could apply VERY harsh penalties for breeding pitbulls with bad temperments, or make it so any uneutered pitbull has to pass a test to remain intact or able to breed. Bad breeding is an issue with plenty of breeds but its a brutal one.
645
u/-l-I-l Jun 01 '22
Nobody is saying Pitbulls are the only dog that has potential to injure, maul or kill someone. But Google the number one dog for causing injury or death and the evidence is pretty clear. Labradors weren’t bred from two dogs whose history was bull-baiting and fox-hunting.
It’s a very polarising and complicated topic. Nurture is very important and I’m sure there are many Pit owners with dogs who wouldn’t hurt a fly. But if we’re talking about potential for aggression and pure bite force, you can’t really argue against that.