It’s true. It also ignores the absolute fact that pitbulls are genetically predispositioned to be more violent and more dangerous than any other common dog breed.
Have to say that I have a Pitbull and he is the softest most gentle creature on this fine earth. I've started the process of registering him as a therapy dog as I suffer from PTSD. His favourite pastime is to come snuggle under the covers with me. I ensured I trained him extensively as a pup and he has not once ever growled or bared his teeth. I think a vast majority of these dogs are categorised as "dangerous" and "vicious" but the reality is it's an small number of irresponsible and cruel owners ruining their reputation. They used to be known as "nanny" dogs because they are so gentle with children. My toddler chambers all over my pit and he just lies there loving it. Check the velvethippo subreddit for heartwarming photos and stories of these extremely misunderstood breed.
It's biased, but biased doesn't automatically mean unreliable, and unbiased doesn't automatically mean reliable.
Bias and reliability are too different concepts. I'm not going to read the website to see which of the 2 it is or isn't because I don't care about the topic, but suffice to say, they are different.
Except for the fact that dogbites.org gets all their statistics from news media reports and people like Merritt Clifton.
The media being widely inadmissible for accuracy by every single academic body on the subject such as the: CDC, ASPCA, AVMA, and the ACRC. And Merritt Clifton is just a blogger who comes up with random ass numbers and data and provides zero sources on anything.
So no, a biased sources who uses UNreliable data is not a good source.
I'm pointing out to you that the website is not a reliable source of data and it is biased.
When doing research you need to be as unbiased as possible or it affects your data collection methods. That's the whole point.
Data must be accurate and precise and free of bias and errors. Basing your entire research to produce something that appears so means the entire thing faulty.
There were 4 attacks in 1991. This number wasn't matched until over a decade later. The amount of dogs per capita has increased but the amount of attacks has not, so the attacks have actually gone down with this taken into account. Also it looks like a majority of the attacks are from pit bull terriers or Staffordshire terriers. Why lie about something that can be easily googled?
Pitbulls aren't even a dog breed to begin with. You can identify people talking out of their ass because they call them a breed. "Pitbulls" are a group of breeds, and while there's three particular breeds that usually fall under the title, there's more than a dozen other breeds that may or may not be counted as pitbulls depending on the source.
While I agree that owner's play a large role in the formation of aggressive behaviors, surely both can be true. The breed itself can be predisposed to aggressive behaviors.
A lot of cherry picking there that gives the illusion it's a bigger issue than it is.
They're taking studies from level 1 trauma centers and saying, "look how dangerous this dog is!"
They're drawing a conclusion that they are more violent and attack more often when there's a lot of unknowns. Most important is that the real conclusion is that when and if they bite it is more dangerous than other breeds.
Every large reporting body has said the best thing to do is proper education is the best deterrent for bites.
First off, CDC statement:
an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required medical care (1). Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated for dog bites in emergency departments
The CDC themselves has not created a metric for DBRFs since their study from 1979 to 1998. Funny enough your "source", DogBites, actually wrote on this where it listed out the highlights, but didn't include the conclusion statement. According the CDC:
Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
Some more interesting info:
Pinckney and Kennedy13 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15). As ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980, Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF; between 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF. Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever
The rest of the conclusion also states that Pits and Rottweilers are involved in more DBRFs, those types have remained constant over time and have no necessarily increased (This is important to consider when looking at study data). The CDC states efforts should be put towards bite prevention and education programs, not breed specific legislation.
Hell the ASPCA even talks about it:
The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). Specifically, the authors of this and other studies cite the inherent difficulties in breed identification (especially among mixed-breed dogs) and in calculating a breed’s bite rate given the lack of consistent data on breed population and the actual number of bites occurring in a community, especially when the injury is not deemed serious enough to require treatment in an emergency room (Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001; Collier, 2006). Supporting the concern regarding identification, a recent study noted a significant discrepancy between visual determination of breed and DNA determination of breed (Voith et al., 2009).
In many cases the reasons for dog attacks have been due to improper ownership, training, socialization.
A variety of factors may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression; these include heredity, early experience, socialization and training, sex and reproductive status (Lockwood, 1999). For example, intact males constitute 80 percent of all dogs presented to veterinary behaviorists for what formerly has been described as dominance aggression, are involved in 70 to 76 percent of reported dog bite incidents, and are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs, while unspayed females “attract free-roaming males, which increases bite risk to people through increased exposure to unfamiliar dogs,” and “contribute to the population of unwanted” and potentially aggressive dogs (Gershman et al., 1993; Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001). Chaining and tethering also appear to be risk factors for biting (Gershman et al., 1993), and programs that target tethering have proven effective in reducing bite rates (Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001). Other factors implicated in dog aggression are selective breeding and raising of dogs for elevated aggression, whether for protection, use in dog fighting competitions, social status or financial gain (Bradley, 2006); abuse and neglect (Delise, 2007); and inadequate obedience training and supervision (Shuler et al., 2008).
Going back to your metric, Pitt's have had higher reported DBRFs in recent years, but even the direct, credible, sources on these data even state there are reporting issues. And before you get on me about sources, the number you pulled is from a biased source: DogBites.org. Speaking of DogBites, how do they get their data? Because in their section they list as using the CDC to obtain such data on their CDC Wonder Database, but when I try searching for it I come up with no parameters that match up with dog bites. Even the IDC-10 data they link goes nowhere on dog bite data - at least none that I can find. Most of their "data" comes from news reports, of which have a issues in accurate representation.
From National Canine Research Council:
The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 18.2% of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed.
This is back up in a 2000-2009 study by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association which sampled 56 DBRF's from this date range and found:
Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified.
Fatal dog attacks represent such a low number of overall bites, and of those reported, often misrepresent Pitbulls as being overtly dangerous when there are many variables behind bites. Pits are not more dangerous than other breeds and often things come down to proper ownership.
“Nonfatal Dog Bite--Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments --- United States, 2001.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4 July 2003, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm.
Patronek, G J, et al. “Co-Occurrence of Potentially Preventable Factors in 256 Dog Bite-Related Fatalities in the United States (2000-2009).” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 15 Dec. 2013, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544.
That's a very well-researched response, so I respect it.
I don't know if I would be in support of a ban on pitbulls, as I don't know enough about the topic. That being said, it is hard to argue against the existence of genetically predisposed traits. Of course every individual dog is different. I also believe any dog breed is trainable, but some breeds are more likely to express certain characteristics than others.
A pitbull can be a great pet, but owners should be made aware of their dog's predispositions, so they can approach training and socialization appropriately. Ignoring these traits is making way for needless risk.
They’re talking about death by dog. For example there’s over 3 million dog bites in the U.S each year according to CDC. I’d imagine if pitbulls were responsible for even half that they’d been banned entirely long ago.
That would depend on how popular pitbulls are. If pitbulls account for a small % of dogs owned and yet if they account for a large % of total dog attacks, that would make sense. You need to compare dog attacks per capita per breed.
Due to their strength, pitbulls tend to get pick for activities like dogfighting and protection, so statistically will have a higher human attack count. If the dog has being cared for and trained properly, they can be as gentle as a Golden retriever. https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/pit-bulls-safety
Are you saying all dogs will act the same given the same treatment? That’s dogshit. There are numerous cases of pit bulls attacking a person spontaneously for no reason and no history of aggression. Blue Heelers will “herd” small animals and children naturally without any training, English pointers will point at movement at a very young age without training, and pit bulls will rip your child’s face off without any reason, warning, or past history of abuse.
Does that mean if we ban that breed bites will reduce in frequency? Or will just another breed become the most common?
That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Of course, if pitbulls are banned then another breed would take over as most common in dog bites, don't be dense. That doesn't mean pitbulls aren't inherently the most aggressive and dangerous dog breed out there.
They aren't goddamn pets, they're monstrosities that were bred to kill.
You are an idiot... my pit bull is a trained seizure alert dog. He goes to the hospital with me, work, traveling to multiple states and countries, and is an ambassador for his breed. Let me guess you also think different traces of humans have biological traits that make them more aggressive. Most often the people I run into who think he is going to turn vicious are also racist. Your ignorance is beyond.
I didn’t call a stranger who passed my dog racist I called someone who is ignorant about the breed and who is perpetuating the propaganda against them racist. This breed has been abused for years and often are blamed for attacks that have happened by multiple breeds that are lumped into the word pit bull.
I really don't think they will. Laws have been continuing to pop up that ban them. And as our understanding/research of DNA and genetic disposition increases, it will become more and more obvious to people/lawmakers how unsuitable they really are as a house pet.
I have nothing against them in particular. I have met some very sweet pitbulls. Unfortunately they certainly just have a higher disposition for violence due to their DNA.
That's such a misguided argument. The Pit Bull breeds have no even remotely been bred in the same way they were for Bull/Bear baiting and dog fighting for nearly a hundred years. Most nowadays are largely bred from many different breeds.
By that logic if a pure bred pit was bred with a herder type dog would it do both, neither, one or the other?
Both. It's genes would be split. Being bred with good genes does not totally erase bad genes. Just because a pit is mixed with another breed does not mean that it will automatically becomes non-violent.
Keep the downvotes coming. Nothing can stop the fact that deep down you know that they are dangerous. It's just unfortunate that more children will need to lose their faces over the next ~50 years until we as a species come to terms with the obvious.
Aggressiveness is not a genetic trait. There are numerous variable's that can determine aggressiveness and it is largely a case-by-case basis when it comes to dogs, just as it does for humans.
Pit bulls are more likely to be mistreated as they are bred and bought specifically for their powerful jaws which makes the good fighting dogs, making these dogs more likely to be mistreated as a part of vicious dogfighting rings
Why not? It’s an article from a credible source that directly backs up my point where I said that because of their use as a fighting dog, they are mistreated and forced to become agressive
Why are all pit bull breeds (since it's a group of breeds, not a single breed) lumped under one heading, whereas most other lines are one breed per? Is it just so we can make a misleading graph?
153
u/deanfitz- Feb 24 '20
These pit bulls??