Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[GreNME]

Pitbulls and bullterrier breeds (here referred to by teh shorthand 'bull terrier') are disproportionately present in the study of which dogs displayed aggression towards humans.

By 'disproportionately' I mean that they are over-represented relative to their share of Australian dog ownership of all breeds.

Now, as I've said before, the onus on you for this particular study is to show that some other factor rather than the inherent nature of the breed accounts for this, and furthermore (since I never said that only the breed's nature was responsible) to show that whatever non-breed specific factors you believe are responsible for this disproportionate representation are sufficient to account for all of this disproportionate representation.

You're hand-waving again.

First, you're implying that a sample of 226 dogs somehow establishes breed standards, when not even the categories the study used were along standard breed lines. That's just a flaw in the representation you're claiming, though, because nothing in the study whatsoever makes any claim to inherent danger by breed and is instead evaluating dogs that have already attacked-- no controls, no external conditions measured, nothing implying that the study is trying to determine anything but a correlative summary, which you are in turn trying to present as a causative one without offering any basis in fact or evidence to support using the study in a different manner that it was presented.

This is what I mean about you not having a clue regarding the study: you don't even seem to be able to describe its relevance to the point you're trying to make in a way that fits. You're just tossing it in there and demanding I either accept it or discredit it completely, when in reality it's not even trying to support the claim you're being called on.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

First, you're implying that a sample of 226 dogs somehow establishes breed standards, when not even the categories the study used were along standard breed lines. That's just a flaw in the representation you're claiming,

A fairly minor one in this case.

though, because nothing in the study whatsoever makes any claim to inherent danger by breed

The statistics being cited show a disproportionate propensity for these dogs to attack people, which is what you asked for.

and is instead evaluating dogs that have already attacked-- no controls,

That you think this statistic, and its use in the context of this thread, is invalidated by the absence of a control group shows how out of your depth you are here.

no external conditions measured,

You asked for something other than a media analysis, I delivered. I could deliver more, but there's less and less of a point to this. As I said, if you think that the disproportionate number of certain breeds which had attacked people is due to some causal factor other than the breed, then you should provide this evidence. I merely provided evidence that the breed in question was more likely to be aggressive towards people, based on something other than a media analysis. All you're doing is suggesting explanations without any kind of demonstration of the plausibility of these explanations.

nothing implying that the study is trying to determine anything but a correlative summary, which you are in turn trying to present as a causative one without offering any basis in fact or evidence to support using the study in a different manner that it was presented.

an understanding of how division works is so very important these days

til next time
ta ta.

 

[GreNME]

First, you're implying that a sample of 226 dogs somehow establishes breed standards, when not even the categories the study used were along standard breed lines. That's just a flaw in the representation you're claiming,

A fairly minor one in this case.

And now we're back to the comedy. You make a claim about specific breeds having an inherent quality, and when pressed to give evidence you offer a study that is intentionally unspecific with breeds, lumping them together into their own basic criteria. When it's pointed out to you that this flaw undermines your basic premise, you dismiss it as a minor flaw.

The statistics being cited show a disproportionate propensity for these dogs to attack people, which is what you asked for.

No, what I asked for is for you to provide proof of your assertion that certain breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. Instead you give a study that looks only at dogs that have attacked post-hoc, with poor delineation of breeds or even type, which doesn't even address inherent characteristics.

That you think this statistic, and its use in the context of this thread, is invalidated by the absence of a control group shows how out of your depth you are here.

You're still trying to read my mind, and you're consistently bad at it. You're being challenged to support an assertion you made, and it's being pointed out to you that the evidence you've presented doesn't even examine what you are claiming it does.

You asked for something other than a media analysis, I delivered.

No, I asked you to substantiate your assertion with evidence, and you continue to disappoint.

I could deliver more, but there's less and less of a point to this. As I said, if you think that the disproportionate number of certain breeds which had attacked people is due to some causal factor other than the breed, then you should provide this evidence. I merely provided evidence that the breed in question was more likely to be aggressive towards people, based on something other than a media analysis. All you're doing is suggesting explanations without any kind of demonstration of the plausibility of these explanations.

Really? Answer this: which breed in the study was most represented of their sample? I predict you get the answer wrong on the first try.

an understanding of how division works is so very important these days

 

[Furcifer]

Are 3bodyproblem, myself, and perhaps a few others who abandoned this thread ages ago the only ones who get this?
Yes, Pit Bulls have a bad rep; not only is it undeserved, BSL will not solve the problem.

At this point there's a lot invested in the hyperbole. We may need a break stick.

To be honest, in the past I was in favor of banning the breed. I thought it would just be easier to ban them and be done with it. Then I started to meet responsible owners and dogs that were properly trained and the "Evil Dog" illusion faded. When you make the correlation between the owner, the dog and the temperament the notion that banning would work fades. I've seen Akita's 125lbs that would eat your face off if given the chance. Those dogs are way more dangerous that Pitbulls, but people don't give them a second look because they're all nice an fluffy! Chow Chow's are not good around children either, but they look like cute fuzzy bears with blue tongues!

Responsible owners. If they don't take responsibility you make them. Problem solved.

 

[bethgsd]

At this point there's a lot invested in the hyperbole. We may need a break stick.

To be honest, in the past I was in favor of banning the breed. I thought it would just be easier to ban them and be done with it. Then I started to meet responsible owners and dogs that were properly trained and the "Evil Dog" illusion faded. When you make the correlation between the owner, the dog and the temperament the notion that banning would work fades. I've seen Akita's 125lbs that would eat your face off if given the chance. Those dogs are way more dangerous that Pitbulls, but people don't give them a second look because they're all nice an fluffy! Chow Chow's are not good around children either, but they look like cute fuzzy bears with blue tongues!

Responsible owners. If they don't take responsibility you make them. Problem solved.

And how do you make them take responsibility?
But that could be a whole other thread, with lots of back and forth too

 

[Toke]

I'm sometimes tempted to start a pool on which breed will be the next "Evil Dog." My guess is that it'll either come back to German shepherds or it'll turn to one of the giant breeds that are starting to show up in greater numbers (Newfies or one of the mastiff breeds).

I wonder if anyone have read this article?

 

[Furcifer]

And how do you make them take responsibility?
But that could be a whole other thread, with lots of back and forth too

See post #201

 

[bethgsd]

See post #201

I went back and reread it, but I would still tweak it. Have some sort of training test, dogs and handlers that pass earn off lead freedom (not roaming loose) and allow the dogs to keep their 'nads.

 

[Emet]

I went back and reread it, but I would still tweak it. Have some sort of training test, dogs and handlers that pass earn off lead freedom (not roaming loose) and allow the dogs to keep their 'nads.

Try these:

post 219
post 260

 

[GreNME]

I wonder if anyone have read this article?

You win the internets for the day thanks to you linking that article (the foxes got me).

The dog in that list reminds me of pics I shared about the male dog we had until we lost him in 2009. He was a very large male Irish wolfhound who loved to play-fight... but only with me (and my GSD) and he never tried to hurt anyone/anything. That didn't stop him from looking quite ferocious while playing, though:

Believe it or not, learning bite games helps to teach a dog bite inhibition, because they learn how to control the pressure they're applying to suit the situation (in other words, play means no hurting). I've only rarely shown pics like this to strangers, with the exception of having posted it a few times here on the JREF, because I tend to be cautious about folks misinterpreting the dog's behavior and thinking it's aggressive. The big goofball there (the dog, not me) was actually so gentle and well-behaved we were considering having him certified as a therapy dog. As a responsible dog owner I have to make sure to be very careful when going out in public with my GSD, since it's pretty much a guarantee that if people come up to comment on him that at least one person will tentatively ask "does he bite?" before reaching out a hand to pet him. If I'm not feeling particularly explanatory that day, I just say "no" with a smile and let them pet him, but sometimes I'll answer "sure, all dogs bite, but he's got no reason or cause to bite anyone so you're perfectly safe." What usually follows is a fifteen-minute primer on dogs, puppy behaviors, bite inhibition, training experience and socialization.

 

[bethgsd]

GreNME,

Looking at the two pictures you posted I don't see anything in the dog's body language that would make think that the two of you aren't playing.

When asked if my dogs bite I occasionally respond with, "Why?"

 

[Ryokan]

When asked if my dogs bite I occasionally respond with, "Why?"

 

[Furcifer]

I went back and reread it, but I would still tweak it. Have some sort of training test, dogs and handlers that pass earn off lead freedom (not roaming loose) and allow the dogs to keep their 'nads.

There certainly room for tweaking, however I disagree with having off lead freedom and there is plenty of evidence to suggest altering dogs is in the best interests of the dogs health and well being.

A dog can easily be trained to follow to be off lead and still be skittish and unpredictable around children, small animals, cars, other dogs, thunder etc. It would take extensive testing to run through all the possible scenarios in order to ensure the dog in truly under the control of the handler. The benefits simply don't outweigh the risks. There's very little reason to have a dog off leash in public other than for exercise in a off lead dog park. In that case I think the same thing applies, double the fines for identified breeds and stricter enforcement. Any dog engaging in aggressive behavior is subject to fines while off lead. It's important that the smaller breeds and their owners aren't given a free pass to behave badly. I can't tell you the number of times I've had small dogs become agressive with my dogs and people feel it's OK because their dog is smaller. Dogs don't evaluate their size (or gender) in relation to another dog and realize "Hey I'm bigger, I can't fight this dog it's out of my weight class". People tend to project this human quality onto dogs and it doesn't exist. Luckily my dogs were trained and never engaged in aggressive behavior.
As for fixing them, there's irrefutable evidence that spaying and neutering considerably improves the dogs quality of life. Read this. This article doesn't even mention the other statistic i cited earlier, 97% of dogs involved in fatal attacks weren't fixed. That means the chance of a fixed dog, that's involved in an attack on a human has a 1 in 5 million chance of resulting in a fatality. That's pretty remote. I've never even been bit, and none of my dogs have ever bit anyone. I can't even remember seeing anyone get bit!

 

[Lithrael]

it's pretty much a guarantee that if people come up to comment on him that at least one person will tentatively ask "does he bite?" before reaching out a hand to pet him.

I was just taught to always ask this as a kid. I think it was for *my* benefit so I would remember dogs could bite, in my enthusiasm meeting a new doggie. When I got older it changed to 'may I pet him?'

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My answer to the " does he bite " question, was " He doesn't bite me ... " .

 

[willhaven]

I am a veterinarian who has been practicing for 26 years. I have worked in numerous urban and suburban practices in the US, with clients of varying socio-economic and educational levels.

In upper middle class practices, where the clientele is fairly well educated, the vast majority of Pit Bull breeds are pussycats, and most of my colleagues agree that there are other breeds that we worry about a lot more.

I'm not making any correlations--just relating my experiences.

This is my perception as well. If Dog Breed X is seen as a macho status symbol breed, people who buy Dog Breed X may tend to be macho status symbol types. Those who buy dogs as status symbols are probably less likely to be conscientious dog owners.

I remember growing up when Rottweilers were the big threat. I know some Rottweilers at the dog parks I go to and they're all well behaved.

The one Pit Bull type dog I've seen that was badly behaved had the owners hit it when it was misbehaving... in front of dog owners... in a dog park.

There was one Bulldog that ran over children. Didn't intend to hurt them, but sometimes did. But the sign at the front of the park says to keep your children supervised. Maybe the kid should be sitting on one of the picnic tables instead?

 

[GlennB]

Yeah, you mean the Clifton Report, which I've already pointed out is a sack of lies. Trying to repackage what I've already covered as being fake data implies that you aren't aware that the Clifton fraud permeates the BSL/Animal Rights arguments (which you're just repeating...

No. I'm referring to the CDC report, so kindly stop with the failed mind-reading exercises.

Meanwhile, Pit Bull Rescue Central happily admit that PB owners should have a break stick to hand, to separate a PB from its target should an attack happen. A stance that you have studiously avoided. Why?

 

[Bmorepitbull]

Meanwhile, Pit Bull Rescue Central happily admit that PB owners should have a break stick to hand, to separate a PB from its target should an attack happen. A stance that you have studiously avoided. Why?

I took a look at the page on their site recommending owners have a 'break stick.' The funny thing was at the bottom of that page was a link to another part of their site were they were selling such items for 30 dollars a pop. Is it generally considered good skepticism to go on the say-so of a site that is selling a product it claims is necessary? Curious, that.

Furthermore, what exactly is your point about the alleged necessity of owning a 'break stick'? The site itself admits that the APBT and Staffie bite strength is lower then many other breeds of dogs. It also disabuses you of the myth that "Pit Bull type dogs have locking jaws" (the myth that I believe originated the 'break stick' woo product) so why should a person own one? Other then because a site selling them said you should own one of course.

I have worked at several shelters in my area and for several organizations promoting APBT and Bully awareness. I also frequent our local dog park were on any given day there are around a dozen APBT, Staffies, and Bully breed mixes. I own an APBT. Yet I have -never- seen or heard of anyone owning a 'break stick.' Maybe I'm just not as clever as you, but I really do fail to see what exactly a 'break stick' is meant to imply about Bully breed dogs.

 

[GreNME]

No. I'm referring to the CDC report, so kindly stop with the failed mind-reading exercises.

No mind-reading necessary. The CDC has no report identifying by breed (but Merrit Clifton used CDC incidents and guessed), so look very closely and you'll find that I'm quite accurate with the sources the HSUS is using for their inflated, overblown, and dishonest numbers. I've already had this conversation in other threads-- that the HSUS has pretty much turned into a PETA-like organization with better lawyers-- but if you want to point out to me where you got those numbers you first attributed to the HSUS then I'm certain that we can show everyone reading precisely where the numbers actually came from.

Meanwhile, Pit Bull Rescue Central happily admit that PB owners should have a break stick to hand, to separate a PB from its target should an attack happen. A stance that you have studiously avoided. Why?

Because you're using a store as your source for this bogus recommendation!

I haven't avoided anything, GlennB. I've told you flat-out that APBT owners do not get told by any authorities I'm aware of to carry a break stick, that most APBT owners probably don't even know what a break stick is, and that you can go to gatherings of bully breed owners yourself and verify what I'm saying. I'm not only being completely straight with you, GlennB, I'm actually encouraging you to verify what I say independent of my post.

Though, considering the odd definition you and other guys insisted on for using 'gameness' earlier, I can see how you'd mix up words like "avoiding" with "answering."

 

[bethgsd]

Here is an opposing view on spay/neuter:
http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/Mandatory_Spay_Neuter.htm
Chris Zink, DVM also has a paper on reasons to delay spay/neuter until the dog is mature.

But, I'm doing what I promised myself not too, getting off on a tangent from the OP.