Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[kerikiwi]

No pun intented, but you seriously have got to be kidding.

A bit of a diversion, but as a lover of good puns, I cannot see what the pun actually was...

 

[Furcifer]

A bit of a diversion, but as a lover of good puns, I cannot see what the pun actually was...

dogma

 

[kerikiwi]

dogma

Nope. Post 417...

 

[alfaniner]

Yes, and in that thread you ended up agreeing that yes, dogs do chase cats. Honestly, have you never heard of dogs chasing cats before? Dogs, not pitbulls.

I mean, come on.

None of the other dogs I've had showed much interest in the cats. Much less going redline.

 

[GreNME]

I'm comparing them to popular breeds, and not other potentially dangerous, but rare, breeds like the Tosa Inu, Fila Brasiliero, etc. You seem to imply that size is the most important factor that determines how dangerous a dog can be. I disagree, especially when more than one dog is involved (unless, of course, in reference to very small dogs which are, obviously, less dangerous than larger ones).

All you're doing is taking the claim of inherent danger and you're trying to put it in a different wording. You're wrong. Size and strength are the two most important factors. You use words like "popular breeds" as if that's supposed to be meaningful, but popular where? With whom? I mean German shepherds appear higher on most lists I can find than the pit bull (who also are listed as American Staffordshire terrier), and the GSD can do far more damage in a shorter amount of time than the pit bull. Other dogs of note that I've seen mentioned on lists of popular dogs: Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bulldog, Rottweiler, and some coonhounds (which were bred to not back down).

If you narrow your criteria down for what you'd like to consider popular enough you'll get the results you desire, but if you use common lists my point still stands.

I did not mean if there was some experiment done where they hit different breeds with baseball bats. I'm sure you could look at all known dog attacks and determine if one breed is more likely to demonstrate a willingness to endure physical pain and keep attacking moreso than other breeds. I was merely asking if this had been done. Wouldn't this qualify as 'data'? Some experiments can't be done in the laboratory, for obvious ethical reasons (like hitting dogs with baseball bats), and the data must be compiled through survey. I only used baseball bats as an example since they were used (unsuccessfully) in the link I posted.

Again, you're trying to imply inherent danger where you can't actually quantify it, and in the process attributing to pit bulls some type of power that they just don't have. They're dogs-- all dogs have a pretty high tolerance when attacking, but they're still animals who can only take so much physical punishment. There are dogs who are built in manners (bigger, stronger, thicker coat) that allow them to take as much punishment as a pit bull would during an attack and keep going.

Noted. But again, my question was "are PBs more likely to keep attacking when you fight back"? If this is indeed true, then I would say that, yes, they are potentially more dangerous than other breeds (even larger ones).

This is yet another of the types of ways people try to establish some form of inherent danger. No, pit bulls are no more likely to keep attacking that a rottweiler, a German shepherd, a bulldog, or a coonhound (among other breeds) regardless of your fighting back. The tenacity and toughness of the pit bull has been far over-hyped to create the impression that this dog somehow stands out among the dog breeds when in actuality it really doesn't stand out in capabilities. The pit bull's purpose-bred abilities for bull-baiting and hunting do not automagically translate to them being more likely to do any of what you suggest (and, honestly, most wouldn't be capable of doing the bull-baiting any more).

I only said the bigger picture leaves me wondering (i.e. I'm asking questions), is this not a component of critical analysis?

Not in the way you're asking the questions. Your questions keep assuming misleading or mythical thinking regarding the behavior, abilities, or capabilities of the pit bull.

By the way, in the link I posted, only three of the family's five PBs were involved in the attack, but all five were killed by the authorities. Is this typical? The other two weren't even in the same room as the three attackers.

Yes, this is typical and not just for pit bulls. When pit bulls are involved authorities and neighborhoods do exhibit a greater eagerness to put down any pits they find, but authorities have been known to put down dogs also residing in a home as a dog that has killed someone, and though it's not always done as a policy it still happens. It may happen more frequently with pit bulls due to the social stigma of them, but this type of punishment to the dogs is common in these instances.

 

[Toke]

Yes, this is typical and not just for pit bulls. When pit bulls are involved authorities and neighborhoods do exhibit a greater eagerness to put down any pits they find, but authorities have been known to put down dogs also residing in a home as a dog that has killed someone, and though it's not always done as a policy it still happens. It may happen more frequently with pit bulls due to the social stigma of them, but this type of punishment to the dogs is common in these instances.

It does make some sense to put down the whole household, the dogs are raised by the same "less than ideal" owner, and are all likely to be defective.

I read of one kennel owner/breeder whose daughter were chewed by a rottweiler, he took a shotgun and put down the dog and all its blood relatives. I guess he suspected insanity in that line.

(well ok, it is two different reasons for sweeping put downs, but it does illustrate that humans are more important than dogs.)

 

[roger]

None of the other dogs I've had showed much interest in the cats. Much less going redline.

No, you must be right, no other dogs beside pit bulls go after cats or other small prey.

On a related note, a bank I lived next to was robbed by a black guy. None of the white people I know robbed the bank. Therefore,.....

edit: someone must tell these people that they are smoking crack. No way a retriever could be dangerous to cats, or kids:

Petfinder retrievers

 

[Furcifer]

Nope. Post 417...

Mmm, I think it's a running pun

 

[alfaniner]

No, you must be right, no other dogs beside pit bulls go after cats or other small prey.

Where did that come from?

Anyway, the cat is dead. The dog is dead. I had done everything right to the best of my ability up to that point. End of that story. And my contribution here.

 

[Cleon]

It's interesting the way those of us who have non-dangerous pit bull stories are told that they're anecdotal and therefore meaningless, but oddly that doesn't apply to those who have dangerous pit bull stories.

The point is this: Either anecdotes have significance or they don't.

 

[Furcifer]

No, you must be right, no other dogs beside pit bulls go after cats or other small prey.

On a related note, a bank I lived next to was robbed by a black guy. None of the white people I know robbed the bank. Therefore,.....

edit: someone must tell these people that they are smoking crack. No way a retriever could be dangerous to cats, or kids:

Petfinder retrievers

I understand where you're coming from but I'd be careful making comparisons between dogs and humans. I've found people tend to tune out and dismiss you as a little overzealous when they hear them.
Not that there are similarities to be drawn. Some of the "breedism" that exists, exists for the same reason as racism. Both rely on ignorance and stereotypes to be perpetuated. And while we have extended some of the same rights we give to people to animals, Breed Specific Laws aren't covered under the Charter or Constitution.

To be honest, as I read this thread I wonder if it isn't time to step back, embrace the BSL's and see what happens. Ontario is entering it's 6th year? of this ban and it doesn't seem to be having any effect on the number of bites each year. I'm curious how this has effected fatalities, but I have yet to find any hard data.

I'm just thinking it might be time to consider a moratorium on the breed. Consider banning the ownership to all but qualified and registered breeders or trainers. During that time try to keep detailed records of incidents, and try to prove some of the claims we know to be true. This would differ from the Ontario BSL in that it wouldn't seek to eliminate the breed. In fact it might improve the breed, turning over the breeding to the most qualified individuals and eliminating the "back yard" breeders, which have IMO ruined the breed up until now.

Anyhow it's just a thought. The more I read the more I'm finding it's hard to find reliable data because there's very little regulation and enforcement.

 

[roger]

Where did that come from?

Anyway, the cat is dead. The dog is dead. I had done everything right to the best of my ability up to that point. End of that story. And my contribution here.

That's fine, I understand this must be an emotional event for you.

But, you claimed that you came to a conclusion about pit bulls based on this event. Or at least that is how I read "So it would be very difficult to convince me otherwise." Dogs attack cats. Your dog was a dog. It does not follow that pit bulls are somehow special in this regard, which is how I read your comment.

And this is where the rep comes from. People jump to conclusions based on emotions, not reason. Here's a link to a dog that hates cats, and bit the neighbor.

Only problem is, it's not a pit bull, it's a dachshund. So, in this case instead of euthanizing him they try to adopt him out to someone with a fence. It's just a bitey dog, you know? But it it was a pit bull? It would be on the news, people would be sharing anecdotes, and talk about how they all should be outlawed.

Petfinder is full of dogs that attack cats. I've volunteered at shelters. They test dogs for cat reactivity for a reason - dogs attack cats. And no, they don't base the testing on breed - every dog gets tested. And it's not just the bully breeds that are reactive.


I'm not claming a la-la land where every breed is equivalent. In general you can probably expect hunting dogs (terriers, etc) to be more reactive to small prey than dogs bred for something else. Dachshunds were bred to hunt badgers - I wouldn't leave a cat around them until they were proven bombproof. Actually, I would do that for any dog, tested by a shelter or not.

It saddens me immensely that you killed a dog for being a dog (if I'm reading your comment right) - thousands of cat reactive dogs are adopted out every day. It's something that can be managed or trained.

 

[Cleon]

I think it's not that "breedism" (for lack of a better word) is akin to racism, it's that the arguments for it are similar to arguments by bigots. There is obviously a very wide gulf in the consequences and morality of the two POVs, but the fallacious arguments are very similar.

Example:

Those who claim that PBs are inherently dangerous point to statistics showing that the number of PBs involved in attacks are disproportionally high compared to other breeds.

The same argument is applied by racists; people of color are disproportionally represented in crime statistics and prison populations. (And these numbers are not nearly as questionable as the ones showing PB involvement in dog attacks.)

So why is the former considered "evidence" of PB's aggressiveness, but the latter is not considered "evidence" of inherent violent tendencies in African Americans?

Of course, neither is evidence for inherent violence; there are multitudes of other factors at work, and the argument presented give only a superficial view of the situation. That's the point.

 

[roger]

I understand where you're coming from but I'd be careful making comparisons between dogs and humans. I've found people tend to tune out and dismiss you as a little overzealous when they hear them.

I hear what you are saying, and agree. Problem is, people are already tuned out. Can you imagine this level of discourse on any other thread? I mean, really. I was bit on the wrist, thus this breed must be bad. I know a neighbor who... etc. It's pure selection bias.

I am drawing the comparison not to say dogs are equal to people, they aren't, I'm just showing how drawing conclusions from such anecdotes can lead you to terrible judgment against groups.

[moratorium..bsl]

But do you understand the effects these laws have had? Kids seeing animal control officers dragging their beloved pet off to be killed (Denver). People being forced to make the impossible decision of moving, hiding their dog, or giving it up to either be adopted or euthanized (many places don't have no kill shelters). If you are ever in the Denver area, look me up. Seriously. We will tour the local shelters. They are filled with bully breeds - perfectly nice dogs*. We have cases of people not living in Denver, their dog got out (face it, we can all inadvertently leave a door open), it was picked up on the Denver line, and you can imagine the rest. One guy came to a "good" result in that Denver agreed not to euthanize the dog if he agreed to put it up for adoption. WTF?

And let's face it, breeders and trainers aren't going to be keeping the dogs if they are the only ones allowed to have them. Sure, a few will, and then you will end up with a gene stock of a few hundred inbred animals.

All of this because of irrational fears? No, thank you.

And it is irrational. You say we don't have data. True, things like the CDC report do not allow you to come to any definite conclusion. But what about the last 100 years when the pit bull was the desired family pet? The poster child for firefighters. The dog in The Little Rascals? Etc. What about the Canine Temperament tests, where pit bulls test out near the top of the list? What about all the proof that pit bulls receive disproportionate press?

If you want data, I refer you to Fatal Attacks: The Stories behind the Statistics, and The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths, and Politics of Canine Aggression. They go back and look beyond the initial media reports of a dog incident. To whet your appetite, the initial (and usually only) report is very flawed. There are statistically significant predictors of human aggression - things like unfixed males, being allowed to roam or conversely, being chained up all of time, etc. I'd suggest a thinking person would realize how much money an unfixed pit bull can make, and how many of these attack stories are of dogs appearing out of nowhere to mow somebody down. I was just in Texas, saw a guy with a beautiful pit, and stopped my car to admire. His first words to me? "1600 dollars" No thanks, not looking for a stud. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked if I wanted to breed my dogs, and how much regret was expressed when I said they were fixed. I could be well off, but could I sleep at night?

It used to be bloodhounds that were feared. You know, those big goofy guys. Stone cold blood killers - everyone could tell you a story. Then it was German Shepards that were reviled. They were man eaters, you know? Then Rotties. Then Dobermans Then other dogs. (not sure on the exact order, except bloodhounds were 100 years ago). Now it's pit bulls.

It's the summer of the shark for pit bulls. To force people to give up their beloved pets, to force them into expensive insurance policies, to force them to have their dogs in muzzles in public (which just increases fear and worry in the mind of the public)? No thank you. I am not interested in catering to other people's irrational fears. I am not interested in employing the wrong tool to solve problems - unfixed roaming dogs, dogs chained up, dogs trained to be 'guard dogs' (bad news if you don't know what you are doing).

My neighbor is raising his dog to be a 'guard dog'. It bites my dogs all the time. But, it's not a pit bull, so animal control won't do anything about it, and lectures us about our 'dangerous' dog. Meh.

Well, I'm thinking stronger words then "meh", but rule 10 and all.


*edit: I know, cry me a river, the shelters are full of pit bulls. Except... they are all past capacity. I know shelters that are building new space to keep up. The important point, though, is that as new dogs come in, other dogs get killed. So BSL leads to non "pit bull" lookalikes getting killed. Plus, let's face it, if there is a problem with the breed, all BSL does is push the problem to another community. It's madness whether pit bull behavior is a real problem or not.

edit2: you seem like a nice person that is genuinely inquiring into this. I hope I don't sound hostile. If I sound like somebody under seige, though, well, I am. I have to hear from neighbors and animal control about my 'dangerous dogs' (because my neighbors dog is attacking mine. WTF). I have to watch people cross the street when they see me. I have to watch a parent's eyes go glassy as their kid is petting my happy, friendly dog, and I answer their inquiry as to the breed. I have to read about extermination, taking my dog from me. I have to read people accuse me of wanting to be tough or a wanna-be gangster. I have to endure being yelled at from car windows. All because I own a happy little dog that wants little more than to go on walks and lick your face. And then, after all that, I have to read that we should just put up with BSL. It gets me going

 

[Furcifer]

I think it's not that "breedism" (for lack of a better word) is akin to racism, it's that the arguments for it are similar to arguments by bigots. There is obviously a very wide gulf in the consequences and morality of the two POVs, but the fallacious arguments are very similar.

Example:

Those who claim that PBs are inherently dangerous point to statistics showing that the number of PBs involved in attacks are disproportionally high compared to other breeds.

The same argument is applied by racists; people of color are disproportionally represented in crime statistics and prison populations. (And these numbers are not nearly as questionable as the ones showing PB involvement in dog attacks.)

So why is the former considered "evidence" of PB's aggressiveness, but the latter is not considered "evidence" of inherent violent tendencies in African Americans?

Of course, neither is evidence for inherent violence; there are multitudes of other factors at work, and the argument presented give only a superficial view of the situation. That's the point.

Agreed. This was more in response to an earlier suggestion roger had made to replace "pitbull" in this thread with "black" or some other race.

I don't disagree with it, in fact I've done it on several occasions. Sometimes people forget how we treat our pets is a reflection of how we treat each other. Our actions towards animals can be very telling about us a society.

It's just something I shy away from because I've found people shut down as soon as they hear the comparison. Shutting down to the extent that it's hard to make any further point beyond that. Non pet owners especially.

 

[Furcifer]

But do you understand the effects these laws have had? Kids seeing animal control officers dragging their beloved pet off to be killed (Denver). People being forced to make the impossible decision of moving, hiding their dog, or giving it up to either be adopted or euthanized (many places don't have no kill shelters).

The problem is we can't enforce a moratorium or ban on the owners. And how can we get people to admit "Yah, it's my fault the dog was aggressive, that's how I trained it".(or didn't properly train it)
As long as they are available the wrong people will have them and they will grace the front page of newspapers every time something happens. And that will trump any effort to change people's opinions on whose at fault, the owner or the breed. I think that's an unfortunate reality.

 

[GreNME]

It does make some sense to put down the whole household, the dogs are raised by the same "less than ideal" owner, and are all likely to be defective.

I read of one kennel owner/breeder whose daughter were chewed by a rottweiler, he took a shotgun and put down the dog and all its blood relatives. I guess he suspected insanity in that line.

(well ok, it is two different reasons for sweeping put downs, but it does illustrate that humans are more important than dogs.)

Well, it's a point of contention as to whether sweeping euthanization is warranted in such cases. I'm of the opinion that it depends on the circumstances and the dogs involved (and their dispositions). Sometimes there could be a medical issue involved, and euthanizing might be warranted depending on the possibility of communicability. Sometimes there is a dog that has something going on (done to it or some kind of damage to its normal functioning) where killing the other dogs does no good. This is actually where performing a necropsy on the offending dog can help the decision. Unfortunately such a process costs money and takes time, so authorities sometimes take the cheaper route.

But yes, there are cases of certain lines having problems that go unaddressed until there's an unfortunate event. Sometimes it's health problems that don't initiate attacks, and sometimes it's batcrap insane behavior (Lab crosses are notorious for this).

 

[Toke]

Well, it's a point of contention as to whether sweeping euthanization is warranted in such cases.

I did say "some sense". And I could easily imagine owners where every dog would be a danger to it's surroundings.

Implementing a "Dog Owners Licence" would likely improve matters but would be rather difficult and costly.
Not only would there be endless discussions on how to define a good owner and test people, it would also require a lot of staff and facilities.

I am not sure the size of the problem* warrants the cost, spending the money on e.g. more roundabouts would safe life's and limbs in traffic.

*ETA: that is, the bites, fatal or not.

 

[tesscaline]

A bit of a diversion, but as a lover of good puns, I cannot see what the pun actually was...

Take a look at the user name of the person GreNME is responding to

 

[kerikiwi]

Take a look at the user name of the person GreNME is responding to

AAh! That's something I always gloss over. Now I get it.