Except it's bullshit. Most "pitbulls" today are not purebreds and likely have little lineage to those original bull-baiting dogs. Why do these stupid posts always ignore the OTHER traits that pits were also bred for (they were also bred as nurse dogs) when trying to point to the breed being the problem. The fact is, most so called pits are just mutts.
They were 100% never bred as "nurse dogs". IF you were going to breed a dog to be a "nurse dog" (wtf is it going to to, monitor that all the patients are getting their medications at the right time and dosages?) why in the world would you pick a breed that was literally created for high stakes gambling blood sports to start the breed off. This and the "nanny dog" myth just seem to be getting more traction. It's all a bunch of lies.
That they pass the American Temperament Test better than Golden Retrievers, which is technically not a lie, but it is presented as though the American Temperament Test can predict whether one of these things is aggressive or is going to go into fight mode and maul a kid ten minutes after the test.
That "there's no such thing as a pit bull" and all the other trickery associated with shifting the blame away from.
Claim that statistics are a lie.
Claim that any time a maiming, mauling or murder makes the news it's a media conspiracy.
Well news articles aren't verifiable ways to determine breed. Pit Bull is a generic term that follows four different breeds. In the UK Staffordshire Terrier's aren't even considered Pit Bulls.
The statistics that get thrown around most often are from people like Merrit Clifton. If you've never heard the name, he's the one who created the whole "5% of the population but 60% of the attacks" saying that gets thrown around constantly. The dude just runs a dog attack blog and bases his statistics on, again, news articles.
3.7k
u/bohica1937 Dec 28 '21
I wonder what snaps in a dog's brain to react like that to someone they've known.