Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[GreNME]

Captain.Sassy, you're just going around in circles now.

Post some actual evidence if you have any. You don't, and what you keep posting is what you think is evidence but is actually discussing something you don't understand and are trying to infer is about inherent dangerousness. More than once already in this thread I've had to explain to you how you've been jumping to conclusions without evidence (inherent danger), making statements without any sort of proof (how breeds get reported), and constantly referencing what you seem to be assuming is my mental state ("you're offended," "take a deep breath," etc.).

Just show what you actually think is the proof of inherent danger and give a brief explanation of why you think this is evidence of such. Otherwise you're just playing spaghetti-on-the-wall games and then demanding I debunk every possible vector of bunk you could possibly throw out there.

Be specific. If you think there is evidence, present it. Stop playing games with point-counterpoint semanticizing about what you think I might have meant in some specific sentence and actually present your case and your evidence to back it up.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Captain.Sassy, you're just going around in circles now.

Hardly.

Post some actual evidence if you have any.

Done. Was ignored / spuriously dismissed.

You don't, and what you keep posting is what you think is evidence but is actually discussing something you don't understand

Misplaced condescension.

and are trying to infer is about inherent dangerousness.

Based on peer reviewed experimental study of breed types. There are plenty more too.

More than once already in this thread I've had to explain to you how you've been jumping to conclusions without evidence (inherent danger),

see above

making statements without any sort of proof (how breeds get reported),

Already discussed, my point not addressed.

and constantly referencing what you seem to be assuming is my mental state ("you're offended," "take a deep breath," etc.).

You started with the needling inferences, actually.

Just show what you actually think is the proof of inherent danger and give a brief explanation of why you think this is evidence of such.

I'm not an animal behaviourologist so I don't know how to design such an experiment effectively.

Be specific. If you think there is evidence, present it. Stop playing games with point-counterpoint semanticizing about what you think I might have meant in some specific sentence and actually present your case and your evidence to back it up.

I have, as have others. You have chosen to ignore it.

 

[GreNME]

More point-counterpoint nonsense.

Captain.Sassy, you've pointed out a paper that cites some studies and qualifies that citation with three caveats, one of which has to do with location so two that are pertinent to this discussion. What is it that you believe is in those citations that supports your assertion of inherent danger by breed? You keep making reference and vague comments pointing to the passage you quoted as saying something of significance, so what is it you think it's actually saying?

Remember: you're the one making the claim. Pointing to some reference without fleshing it out (providing context, summary, or data contained therein) isn't evidence, it's hand-waving. Back it up with evidence instead of hand-waving, and explain to us how the references you're pointing out display inherent danger by breed.

 

[Cleon]

Tell ya what. We can reduce this entire thing to one simple question:

Is there any evidence that pit bulls who've been raised by responsible dog owners (ie, fixed, trained, socialized, etc) are any more likely to "snap" than a similarly-raised dog of another breed?

I've seen the assertion made, but not substantiated.

 

[GreNME]

Tell ya what. We can reduce this entire thing to one simple question:

Is there any evidence that pit bulls who've been raised by responsible dog owners (ie, fixed, trained, socialized, etc) are any more likely to "snap" than a similarly-raised dog of another breed?

I've seen the assertion made, but not substantiated.

Yes, precisely. There has been no study using any recognized control to determine any inherent differences in the danger a given breed will pose that attributes the danger to that of the breed and not the environment in which the dog develops.

What I'm wondering is why Captain.Sassy is so convinced that the citations in the link he provided somehow have solved this problem.

 

[Emet]

That's what I said. I hate the internet, you can't have an original thought on the internet.

Well, if you want to split hairs, I believe I said it first:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6125408&postcount=47

Banning a breed does nothing.

Well, it does create hardship for responsible pet owners. I relocated to another state in USAland a few years ago with my American Bulldog. Every apartment complex I looked at had either breed specific bans or type specific bans. Fortunately for me, the complex I choose had breed specific bans only, so I was able to sign a lease, and even with the use of a Gentle Leader Headcollar, my neighbors quickly learned that my pooch was a pussycat.

Okay, I'm leaving this thread now... really.

 

[GlennB]

Tell ya what. We can reduce this entire thing to one simple question:

Is there any evidence that pit bulls who've been raised by responsible dog owners (ie, fixed, trained, socialized, etc) are any more likely to "snap" than a similarly-raised dog of another breed?

I've seen the assertion made, but not substantiated.

I'll only answer for myself here.

It has never been my contention that PBs are more likely to snap at humans. Simply that if they do snap the effects are different from the majority of dog breeds.

Up the thread somewhere it was pointed out that the bulldog was bred to hold tenaciously. This residual tendency is part of the genetic makeup of PBs, by the admission of PB defenders (for want of a better word) here.

That this tenacity and persistence when attacking is part of the breed characteristic cannot be denied. Before it became non-PC to show PBs it was part of the breed standard, i.e. 'gameness', a fact which has been recognised by GreNME and maybe others.

That they are prone to attacking other dogs seems to have been widely accepted by all sides. I made an obscure reference to how this might impact humans way back in this thread, suggesting that a small person who has fallen might start to look less like a human and more like a dog.

(Meanwhile - I might have missed GreNME's reply to my question about whether PB owners are actually recommended to carry 'break bars', whether owners of other breeds are, and whether breed-specific break bars are available for a wide range of breeds.)

 

[GreNME]

I'll only answer for myself here.

It has never been my contention that PBs are more likely to snap at humans. Simply that if they do snap the effects are different from the majority of dog breeds.

Nonsense. I've already pointed out that there are dozens of larger, stronger, and faster dog breeds than the relatively medium-sized APBT. There is little difference from "the majority of dog breeds" at all, simply an observed difference from breeds you may feel you recognize.

Up the thread somewhere it was pointed out that the bulldog was bred to hold tenaciously. This residual tendency is part of the genetic makeup of PBs, by the admission of PB defenders (for want of a better word) here.

That this tenacity and persistence when attacking is part of the breed characteristic cannot be denied. Before it became non-PC to show PBs it was part of the breed standard, i.e. 'gameness', a fact which has been recognised by GreNME and maybe others.

What's been recognized by me is that "gameness" is a ridiculous descriptor that is being used by yourself and others to imply something different than tenacity, for which the word is synonymous. APBTs still get shown with other bully breeds in competitions that measure their ability to hang on to a ring or rope, as well as being able to demonstrably pull hundreds of pounds of weight in physical competitions. That is the tenacity that I recognize, but you're jumping from that to implications of inherent danger to people or other dogs without substantiating the basis for such a leap.

That they are prone to attacking other dogs seems to have been widely accepted by all sides. I made an obscure reference to how this might impact humans way back in this thread, suggesting that a small person who has fallen might start to look less like a human and more like a dog.

Again, nonsense. They are not inherently prone to attacking other dogs, they are known to suffer conditions that make them anti-social less well than other breeds, which can result in dog-aggression. You're putting the rhetorical cart before the horse in your assertion.

(Meanwhile - I might have missed GreNME's reply to my question about whether PB owners are actually recommended to carry 'break bars', whether owners of other breeds are, and whether breed-specific break bars are available for a wide range of breeds.)

No, APBT owners are not "actually recommended" to carry break bars, and just because you find a website selling the things making such a recommendation does not mean that carrying those things is a standard practice. You can observe this for yourself if you attend a bully breed show if one ever makes its way to your area-- the folks there will be happy to show you the standard things they bring with them at all times. Most of the "standard" equipment consists of leashes and chew toys.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Yes, precisely. There has been no study using any recognized control to determine any inherent differences in the danger a given breed will pose that attributes the danger to that of the breed and not the environment in which the dog develops.

What I'm wondering is why Captain.Sassy is so convinced that the citations in the link he provided somehow have solved this problem.

Numerous empirical studies of dog behaviour and temperament by breed, published in peer reviewed veterinary and animal behaviour journals, show that temperament, and aggression, vary by breed. Some of these show pitbulls are among the more aggressive breeds.

These studies involve a variety of methodologies.

Here is one that relied on data from an aggressive dog behavioural clinic:

"In 223 cases of dogs presented to a specialist behavioural clinic in Brisbane, Australia...The breeds most represented which attacked humans were the Bull Terrier (16%), German Shepherd and crosses (15%), Cattle dog breeds (Blue Heeler and crosses, 9.2%), Terrier breeds (9.2%), Labrador (8%), Poodle and Cocker Spaniel (both 5.7%) and Rottweiler (4.6%). The dangerous dog list put out by the local Brisbane City Council includes the first three breeds mentioned and the Rottweiler as the top four breeds causing aggression problems."

Fine, you may say that the Bull Terriers (which here likely includes the American Pit Bull Terrier) in the sample were disproportionately abused and neglected etc. etc. and so on. Fine, if you make that assertion, the onus is now on you to provide the evidence of this, and also to provide the evidence that the rate of mistreatment of these dogs is so much higher than the rate of mistreatment of other dogs that this can entirely account for the disproportionate number of these dogs involved in aggressive behaviour. Note that this exercise is quite similar to what you have to do if you wish to completely invalidate media analysis showing higher rates of pitbull attacks.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Again, nonsense. They are not inherently prone to attacking other dogs, they are known to suffer conditions that make them anti-social less well than other breeds, which can result in dog-aggression. You're putting the rhetorical cart before the horse in your assertion.

Look at this word soup jumble. Thankfully, you've made an important admission here:

Pitbulls are "known to suffer conditions that make them anti-social less well than other breeds"

What, if not something that inheres in the nature of the breed, causes it to have this reaction to poor conditions disproportionately?

If you assume a certain level of 'poor conditions' for dogs will always exist and be uniform across all breeds, then the pitbull will be more likely to show aggressive behaviour than many other breeds.

 

[GreNME]

Numerous empirical studies of dog behaviour and temperament by breed, published in peer reviewed veterinary and animal behaviour journals, show that temperament, and aggression, vary by breed. Some of these show pitbulls are among the more aggressive breeds.

Great, point some of them out and let's discuss those instead of the misleading and faulty correlative links you've been relying on so far.

These studies involve a variety of methodologies.

Again, all you have to do is point out their methodologies. Studies tend to describe their methodologies right in the text of their paper, so it's not difficult to find them out.

Here is one that relied on data from an aggressive dog behavioural clinic:

"In 223 cases of dogs presented to a specialist behavioural clinic in Brisbane, Australia...The breeds most represented which attacked humans were the Bull Terrier (16%), German Shepherd and crosses (15%), Cattle dog breeds (Blue Heeler and crosses, 9.2%), Terrier breeds (9.2%), Labrador (8%), Poodle and Cocker Spaniel (both 5.7%) and Rottweiler (4.6%). The dangerous dog list put out by the local Brisbane City Council includes the first three breeds mentioned and the Rottweiler as the top four breeds causing aggression problems."

And now you have to point out their methodology for identifying breeds, what actual statement they're making regarding the breeds, and then explain how the information they're giving adds to your premise of inherent danger by breed. You have yet to do any of that.

Fine, you may say that the Bull Terriers (which here likely includes the American Pit Bull Terrier) in the sample were disproportionately abused and neglected etc. etc. and so on. Fine, if you make that assertion, the onus is now on you to provide the evidence of this, and also to provide the evidence that the rate of mistreatment of these dogs is so much higher than the rate of mistreatment of other dogs that this can entirely account for the disproportionate number of these dogs involved in aggressive behaviour. Note that this exercise is quite similar to what you have to do if you wish to completely invalidate media analysis showing higher rates of pitbull attacks.

You seem to be under the impression that for your premise-- that there are inherent dangers in specific breeds of dogs-- to be considered invalid I have to completely disprove every link you throw at me. If this is not what you're saying then by all means clarify, because otherwise you're basically doing the work for me in displaying how irrational and baseless your position actually is.

 

[GreNME]

Look at this word soup jumble. Thankfully, you've made an important admission here:

Pitbulls are "known to suffer conditions that make them anti-social less well than other breeds"

What, if not something that inheres in the nature of the breed, causes it to have this reaction to poor conditions disproportionately?

If you assume a certain level of 'poor conditions' for dogs will always exist and be uniform across all breeds, then the pitbull will be more likely to show aggressive behaviour than many other breeds.

Prove it. Give even a shred of evidence that "more likely to show aggressive behavior" is the inherent result in equal conditions. The citations you've pointed to do not address that. Nothing you've posted addresses that. You continue to make these specific allegations and fail to back them up, and when pressed for evidence you fall back into vague references that don't actually address the lack of evidence to your assertions.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

And now you have to point out their methodology for identifying breeds, what actual statement they're making regarding the breeds, and then explain how the information they're giving adds to your premise of inherent danger by breed. You have yet to do any of that.

Yes, at a certain point I do have faith in scientists working for the veterinary departments of universities and publishing their results in peer reviewed journals.

"An overview of types of aggressive behaviour in dogs and methods of treatment " is the name of the article.

You seem to be under the impression that for your premise-- that there are inherent dangers in specific breeds of dogs-- to be considered invalid I have to completely disprove every link you throw at me. If this is not what you're saying then by all means clarify, because otherwise you're basically doing the work for me in displaying how irrational and baseless your position actually is.

Nope, and if this is what you actually think then you are displaying a staggering ignorance of how fractions work.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Prove it. Give even a shred of evidence that "more likely to show aggressive behavior" is the inherent result in equal conditions.

This is what YOU SAID.

"other dogs, they are known to suffer conditions that make them anti-social less well than other breedswhich can result in dog-aggression"

This is equality of conditions.

Not only do I now have to provide evidence to support my claims (which I have) I have to provide evidence to support yours (which you don't)?

The citations you've pointed to do not address that. Nothing you've posted addresses that. You continue to make these specific allegations and fail to back them up, and when pressed for evidence you fall back into vague references that don't actually address the lack of evidence to your assertions.

I have provided evidence that pitbulls (as well as some other breeds) are more aggressive and more dangerous.

If you are now saying (as I believe you are) that the reason behind these statistics is that pitbulls are disproportionately abused or neglected etc., then actually the onus is on you to provide this evidence.

Cheers,
CS

 

[Toke]

"The pitbull placebo" introduced some interesting concepts with regards to dogs and the media/public opinion.

That there have been a series of "Most evil dog breed"
That the media works as a echo chamber in propagating the latest hysteria.
And that the banning of breeds is a placebo, that will make politicians look like they are doing something. (against dog bites, which happen to be on the decline anyway)

My best guess is that the Pittbull is one of those strong/domineering dogs that would in most cases require an experienced owner to bring up well. As recommended for rotweiler and Doberman.

I assume that when the ban is shown to have no effect on dog bites, it will be expanded to the next "Evil dog".
Alternately the horror of dog bites for headlines could be replaced with a rerun of the child kidnapping scare.

 

[Furcifer]

Well, if you want to split hairs, I believe I said it first:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6125408&postcount=47

Oh well the Cliff Notes version, sure.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I assume that when the ban is shown to have no effect on dog bites

I'd like to see evidence from the German experience with restricting dangerous dogs.

 

[Furcifer]

Alternately the horror of dog bites for headlines could be replaced with a rerun of the child kidnapping scare.

Or an out of control Toyota

(see, I can make jokes at my own expense)

 

[Toke]

I'd like to see evidence from the German experience with restricting dangerous dogs.

Why bother?
You appear to have reached a conclusion already.

 

[GreNME]

Yes, at a certain point I do have faith in scientists working for the veterinary departments of universities and publishing their results in peer reviewed journals.

"An overview of types of aggressive behaviour in dogs and methods of treatment " is the name of the article.

How about we actually discuss the content of the article instead of the title. You know, since the actual content is what's important and all that.

That you're basing your claim to relevance on a title and not even an abstract is a good example of the selection bias I've pointed out in your arguments several times.

Nope, and if this is what you actually think then you are displaying a staggering ignorance of how fractions work.

Fractions don't display inherent-ness of danger. You have yet to provide evidence that isn't correlative and subject to ideological interpretation as opposed to causative and repeatable.

Prove it. Give even a shred of evidence that "more likely to show aggressive behavior" is the inherent result in equal conditions.

This is what YOU SAID.

No, I placed it into correct order that accounts for environmental factors. You've simply played a quote-mining game to make of it what you wish.

"other dogs, they are known to suffer conditions that make them anti-social less well than other breedswhich can result in dog-aggression"

This is equality of conditions.

No, because anti-social conditions produce anti-social dogs. Pit bulls are more susceptible to anti-social conditions. What I didn't get into is why (which has to do with their human-friendliness) because that's a long explanation in its own right. I don't feel compelled to try to educate you on the whole of dog behavior just because you're ignorant of it-- I've suggested books and even provided a link to a free one, and you're so far unwilling to take the initiative of yourself.

Not only do I now have to provide evidence to support my claims (which I have) I have to provide evidence to support yours (which you don't)?

You can simply start by presenting your own evidence. Not titles of papers, the actual evidence.

I have provided evidence that pitbulls (as well as some other breeds) are more aggressive and more dangerous.

You keep asserting that you've provided such evidence, but you keep failing to show us where you've provided it.

If you are now saying (as I believe you are) that the reason behind these statistics is that pitbulls are disproportionately abused or neglected etc., then actually the onus is on you to provide this evidence.

You've made the claim. You've failed to substantiate it. Now you're demanding I go chase down sources based on your pointing to the title of a study and discredit it. No dice. Show the evidence and let's discuss it.