Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[Emet]

Pit Bulls are dogs. You treat dogs well, train them well, and they're loving, loyal dogs.

True. Behavior is a complex interaction of genetic tendencies and environmental influences.

A domesticated dog is little more than a wolf that has lost its independence (not to mention intelligence).

False. There are plenty of packs of stray dogs that are quite capable of living on their own.
Dog^WP

 

[Cleon]

False. There are plenty of packs of stray dogs that are quite capable of living on their own.
Dog^WP

Yes, that bit was exaggeration for the sake of humor.

 

[Toke]

Perhaps the problem could be solved by strict control of who gets to own what breed of dog, and who will have to settle for a goldfish.
(number of tattoos may be apparent after exam.)

 

[I Ratant]

The problem is that responsible Pit bull owners already do that; but it's the irresponsible (not to mention stupid and often downright evil) owners that create the problem with violent, uncontrollable dogs.

.
A guy living here was developing an "attack cocker spaniel", for some perverse reason.
I get along with most animals, but this one would not behave as a normal cocker at all.
And the sumbitch was proud of it!

 

[I Ratant]

My mind boggles too. I mean come on, it's in the name- the 'pit' in 'pitbull' refers to a dogfighting pit. Dogfighting is what these dogs are here for.

I personally don't object to people having pitbulls, but I object to their use as pets. They should be kept as fighting dogs, and dog fighting should be legalized and regulated. Dog fighters should need licenses to own pitbulls, and there should be very strict rules about where you can keep a pitbull.

otherwise just neuter the breed out of existence.

.
Dogfighting is quite a bit lower in the scale of acceptable human behavior than torturing fish with hooks, say.
Right about at the bottom of the list.
Inflicting pain on anything for the sole purpose of inflicting pain is abnormal.

 

[I Ratant]

If most owners fit this category, where is the need for the breed ?

Why do respectable owners, want to own a dog that has a reputation for being dangerous ?

.
That's the key word.
Around here, the typical pit bull on a leash is not being walked by a respectable owner, just someone profiling his stuff, to add to his aura of "bad".

 

[godofpie]

JREF, a skeptical forum. A place for critical thinking. You should try it some time.

Yes, Labs attack sometimes and very occasionally kill. It's a rare event as any dog fatality/notifiable attack statistic you care to investigate will tell you. They weren't bred for that kind of behaviour.

Meanwhile I keep a loaded gun lying around the place, in case violent intruders barge in. It ain't gone off yet. Therefore it's perfectly safe? D'uh.

Well, exactly how far should we go? No dog over a certain weight? Or how about we just de-claw and de-fang all dogs? Dogs were breed for all kinds of things 100 years ago but main stream dog breeding has been mostly for aesthetics in the last couple of decades.

 

[gnome]

The site you linked to illustrates one of the biggest problems with breed bans: Identifying what you are trying to ban. What exactly is a "breed" anyway? Yes, breeds have registries, which try in various manners to restrict which dogs are eligible to contribute to the gene pool of the breed, but, if an owner doesn't identify a dog as belonging to a particular breed -- and they probably won't, if it means the dog will be taken away and destroyed -- it's just about impossible to prove, in any objective manner, that a dog is a member of a particular breed. It typically comes down to somebody's opinion that the dog "looks like" a pit bull, rottweiler, or whatever "breed" the politicians have decided is too dangerous to live. Identifying a pit bull in this manner is just about as scientific as saying that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition because it "looked like" a controlled demolition.

Add in the fact that a significant percentage of the dog population is randomly bred, and may have several different breeds, or no purebreds at all in their immediate ancestry, but may nonetheless have physical characteristics that resemble a particular breed, and you end up killing a lot of perfectly harmless dogs because they look dangerous.

I think this is the most significant post in this thread so far. It describes massive practical problems in identifying which specific animals would fall under such a ban.

If you'll excuse a trip into Godwin, it's a little disquieting how similar this is to the problems in a task of separating humans by race. Please bear in mind I am not making any insinuations about the safety hawks that have legitimate concerns about the breed--just pointing out how deep that rabbit hole may go.

 

[slingblade]

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf
pitbull terriers are page 2, and account for just over half of ALL attacks, despite being about 5% of the US dog population.

Yeah, and people are trying to tell you that for the most part, it's the OWNERS, not the dogs, who are the source of those attacks. A poorly-trained dog of any breed can attack without warning or obvious provocation.

Pit-bulls are often kept by those who want an intimidating dog, and they encourage aggressiveness. Trained properly, a pit bull is no more dangerous or aggressive than any other properly trained dog.

I've been looking at several articles, and most of them tend to agree that the worst dog for unprovoked attacks is the Chihuahua, followed closely by the Dachshund.

Bad dogs have bad owners.

 

[Emet]

I've been looking at several articles, and most of them tend to agree that the worst dog for unprovoked attacks is the Chihuahua, followed closely by the Dachshund.

(my bolding)

Unprovoked according to whom? I recently attended a continuing education seminar given by a veterinarian who is board certified in behavior. (link) Aggression was only one of the topics covered.

She works in a private referral practice, and showed several videos shot at her clinic. The take home messages I received:
1. Most bites are not unprovoked.
2. Dogs have a series of escalating behaviors to "express" their displeasure. When the signals are missed or ignored by others, they move up the scale, resulting eventually in the most aggressive.
3. Once the "pinnacle" has been reached, they are more likely to start with "what works".

 

[gnome]

Pit-bulls are often kept by those who want an intimidating dog, and they encourage aggressiveness. Trained properly, a pit bull is no more dangerous or aggressive than any other properly trained dog.

Gotta nit pick this one. Properly trained a pit bull may be no more aggressive... but it can certainly be more dangerous.

Two equally aggressive dogs, one has stronger jaws and is bigger... the bigger dog in that case is in fact more dangerous.

I kind of see both sides of this. I accept the problem exists, but I think that trying to solve the problem by breed-banning is impractical and wrong.

 

[GreNME]

I realize I'm late to this thread and there are folks who are already entrenched in their positions and not really interested in facts over ideological stance, but still:

The pitbull's "bad rep" may be due to confusion with correlation vs. causation thanks to the mass media. Anyway, is there any scientific, peer-reviewed literature (or the like) out there that analyzes the behaviors of this particular breed of dog?

Not precisely what you're looking for (meaning not a scholarly, peer-reviewed text), but The Pit Bull Placebo would be a fantastic starting point for you to get a stronger understanding of the myths surrounding pits and how they're just another in a long line of breeds that became demonized because hysteria and general gullibility in our culture has a stronger sway over most folks than rational consideration and critical thinking.

-----

(It may not seem like it, but I actually agree with some dangerous breed regulations. I also think they should be rationally applied, and that owners of all breeds should be required to work-train their dogs.)

Breed-specific legislation is a red herring for a movement to ban dog ownership altogether. Calling a dog breed "dangerous" is hyperbole based in emotional BS and scapegoating, and I highly recommend reading the pdf I linked above that is a detailed dissertation on (and historical examination of) that very subject.

-----

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf
pitbull terriers are page 2, and account for just over half of ALL attacks, despite being about 5% of the US dog population.

You're citing the Clifton report, the same one I've already pointed out was fraudulent in the past? Long story short, Clifton made up statistics by breed because there are no accurate or specific statistical data for any specific breeds. This page even more thoroughly goes into the massively misleading and inaccurate information out there (and debunks the Clifton report in the process) used by agenda-driven individuals and groups to demonize dogs by breed as scapegoats.

In other words, you'd do better to find a source that isn't known to have just made crap up. The Clifton report is about as reliable a source as using Loose Change to support the claim that the WTC towers fell at "freefall speed" on 9/11.

-----

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rs...blem-in-victoria/story-e6frf7jo-1225788267670

RSPCA Victoria president Dr Hugh Wirth said the dogs were a menace and were not suitable as pets for anyone.
"They are time bombs waiting for the right circumstances,'' Dr Wirth said.
"The American pit bull terrier is lethal because it was a breed that was developed purely for dog fighting, in other words killing the opposition.
"They should never have been allowed into the country. They are an absolute menace."
They were bred to be aggressive and dangerous. All dogs, even those that are tame, are 'wild at heart'. Some revert more quickly and unpredictably than others.

The highlighted parts illustrate why the laughing dog is the only response that someone who has actual knowledge of dogs and dog behavior can give to the person saying these things. It's like Dr Wirth was just making crap up because it sounded good and applying zero actual scientific understanding whatsoever. It's a testament as to how radically anti-pet the RSPCA (much like it's US counterpart) has actually become.

-----

Red Setters, for example, expecially the overbred pedigrees, have a tendency to get violent when over excited.

I wonder why they aren't even on the list? No attacks with injuries?

The reason why the red setters aren't on the list in question is because the breeds listed in the Clifton report are pretty much made-up. Much like Truthers or Birthers or Creationists, if you're relying on falsified and ideologically-biased sources you're unsurprisingly going to get precisely the answer you're seeking regardless of its basis in fact (or lack thereof).

-----

My mind boggles too. I mean come on, it's in the name- the 'pit' in 'pitbull' refers to a dogfighting pit. Dogfighting is what these dogs are here for.

I personally don't object to people having pitbulls, but I object to their use as pets. They should be kept as fighting dogs, and dog fighting should be legalized and regulated. Dog fighters should need licenses to own pitbulls, and there should be very strict rules about where you can keep a pitbull.

otherwise just neuter the breed out of existence.

You seriously must be joking. The "pit" in their name has to do with whelping them in pits with rats in them, the "bull" in their name comes from their origin as bull-baiting dogs-- they weren't developed for dog fighting, and the continuance of this myth is almost as bad as the myth about their supposedly locking jaws.

Also, "breed out of existence" is right in line with groups like PETA, HSUS, and the ASPCA.

Oh, and anyone here trying to play the "gameness" definition game regarding pit bulls is relying on definitions of the breed that's about a century old. So much of the gameness that's touted as being so strong in the breed has dissipated in large part over the decades as dogs being pets have moved from barns to backyards to inside our homes. This is actually why people who do fight dogs go to such great lengths to try to instill gameness into their dogs, because their nature has pretty much leveled to that of any other bully breed, which is pretty much like that of most other dog breeds (with minor variation). People who tout "gameness" as some kind of current outstanding factor with pit bulls are displaying they know jack squat about dog behavior, outside of the perpetually insipid "I googled it so now I'm an expert" types of bluster that shows up all over the interwebs.

 

[GreNME]

Gotta nit pick this one. Properly trained a pit bull may be no more aggressive... but it can certainly be more dangerous.

Two equally aggressive dogs, one has stronger jaws and is bigger... the bigger dog in that case is in fact more dangerous.

I kind of see both sides of this. I accept the problem exists, but I think that trying to solve the problem by breed-banning is impractical and wrong.

My German shepherd is bigger and has a stronger bite than a pit bull (pop quiz: which breed has the strongest bite? Hint: not the pit bull by far.), so does that make my GSD more dangerous by default?

The conventional opinion on this by pit bull myth repeaters is that no, the pit is still more dangerous.

 

[Steelmage]

The conventional opinion on this by pit bull myth repeaters is that no, the pit is still more dangerous.

That is correct, because pit bulls are magical dogs, that can kill anything no matter the size and number of the opposition, they are impossible to kill, like the Warner Bros. tasmanian devil.

 

[GreNME]

That is correct, because pit bulls are magical dogs, that can kill anything no matter the size and number of the opposition, they are impossible to kill, like the Warner Bros. tasmanian devil.

Indeed, except I wouldn't say magical. After all, they were bred to fight dogs amirite? (ouch, tongue planted too much in cheek for a moment)

The biggest flaw of the magical thinking attributed to pit bulls (besides the blatant falsehoods) is the misconception that somehow the purpose-based breeding that developed the dog's type has somehow set itself in stone with regard to their behavior and disposition. If that were true no one would be able to handle owning akitas or chows or mastiffs and a handful of other dogs, all of whom had been bred for aggressiveness in the past. Heck, if the purpose-based typing held absolute I'd have to be careful with my Irish wolfhounds as well (who were "bred to" kill wolves).

The reality, though, is that while an akita or chow might be high strung and territorial they generally aren't always at the ready to rip someone's throat. Most mastiff breeds are big, slobbery, adorable goofballs instead of the intimidating and dangerous gatekeepers (and guards, particularly against wolves/dogs/bears/men) that they were "bred to" be. While some folks still course wolfhounds and deerhounds and other sighthounds, I wouldn't put most of them up for a genuine large-game hunt. Hell, even the vast majority of Labrador retrievers aren't up to doing much more than toy retrieval out of the water any more. Yet, for some reason, there are those who think putting out the less-than-correct description of the purpose-breeding of pit bulls automagically means that the pit puppy you may see before you has the seed of a juggernaut dog-killer hidden inside.

Honestly, it's no different than any of the other woo out there. (Some) People believe it because they want to believe it, and they'll accept corroborating evidence no matter how spurious or fraudulent.

 

[gnome]

My German shepherd is bigger and has a stronger bite than a pit bull (pop quiz: which breed has the strongest bite? Hint: not the pit bull by far.), so does that make my GSD more dangerous by default?

The conventional opinion on this by pit bull myth repeaters is that no, the pit is still more dangerous.

I would not say it is more dangerous by default, no.

Remember I'm picking a nit, not speaking up for one side. I believe it's possible that two dogs of equal temperament can have unequal dangerousness. That's as far as I'm going with that.

 

[GreNME]

I would not say it is more dangerous by default, no.

Remember I'm picking a nit, not speaking up for one side. I believe it's possible that two dogs of equal temperament can have unequal dangerousness. That's as far as I'm going with that.

That's fine, but to find two dogs of equal temperament would be a rarity. Most dogs tend to be of a manageable temperament regardless of size, but it's pretty indisputable that the smaller breeds do tend to behave more aggressively.

Of course, there's a reason for it, and a large portion of it has nothing to do with the particular breed. People tend to pick up and hold small dogs, for example, which instills in dogs a sense of ownership (as in "this is my territory") with the people who hold them, and this reinforces aggressive behavior whenever someone new comes around their people. Smaller dogs also tend toward having higher levels of energy to burn off and rarely get the opportunity to do so (bouncing around rooms in a house is not sufficient)-- this leads to boredom, which just like in teenagers is the foundation for bad behavior and acting unacceptably.

But enough digression. Sure, dogs with bigger bodies, jaws, and teeth can cause more damage, but on the whole dogs have been moving toward being less temperamental over the years, but that doesn't make for sensational television reporting. While the number of dog bites hasn't increased in any statistically significant amount over three decades (and little to none of the data indicates breeds, so I'm including all dogs), the actual number of dogs living in the United States has increased dramatically. If anything, the per capita risk of any given dog being a danger to someone is going down, not up or even staying the same, which is an indication that if anything dogs (even pit bulls or large breeds) really aren't high on the list of potential dangers or risks. The entire debate of which dogs are more dangerous is akin to debating which would be worse: being struck by lightning or falling and busting your head trying to get out of the shower.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

The biggest flaw of the magical thinking attributed to pit bulls (besides the blatant falsehoods) is the misconception that somehow the purpose-based breeding that developed the dog's type has somehow set itself in stone with regard to their behavior and disposition.

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying that the years of selective breeding for animal aggression and gameness so that pit bulls could excel at dogfighting has had no impact on the innate aptitude or temperament of pitbulls?

Just like years of breeding for herding ability has had no impact on collies' natural herding abilities?

Just like years of breeding to chase and burrow after rodents has had no impact on terriers' fondness for digging and chasing smaller animals?

Just like years of breeding for duck hunting has had no impact on retrievers' preference for swimming?

Fascinating.

 

[Emet]

Of course, there's a reason for it, and a large portion of it has nothing to do with the particular breed. People tend to pick up and hold small dogs, for example, which instills in dogs a sense of ownership (as in "this is my territory") with the people who hold them, and this reinforces aggressive behavior whenever someone new comes around their people

You’re painting with too broad a brush, just as the Pit-Bull death squad folks are. Plenty of small and toy dogs love being held, and react very calmly at all times in that situation. And I believe territory is probably the least likely explanation.

Dogs respond to their environment and social situations. People miss the cues; or respond inappropriately to undesirable behaviors exhibited by the dog. People also force dogs to accept things rather than train them. Unless a dog is taught a new response, they are unlikely to pick a different one.

Dogs do not obey if they do not understand the request.
When dogs do not listen to a command, a competing stimulus or emotion (good or bad) that is stronger than their desires to perform the requested task might be catching their attention.

Little dogs that snap when being held often are unable to show the full range of their displeasure.

A dog standing on the ground who is being petted may not want to be petted. He will turn his head away; he will turn his back toward you to express his displeasure. You will miss the facial cues he is showing. If you persist, he will escalate his behavior.

A little dog being held may have been startled, afraid, uncomfortable, anxious, conflicted, in pain, or just doesn't want to be held. They may turn their head and struggle to be put down, but due to their small size, they will be forced to endure being held.

A conflicted, anxious or fearful dog may be uncertain about their role or the response they receive. Their future behavior is often determined by the responses to their threats or behaviors, yet owners can be very inconsistent, allowing behaviors at some times and punishing them at other times.

When dogs perform an unwanted behavior, it is often because they thought it was the appropriate behavioral choice at the time.

Whenever one is dealing with aggression, confrontations should be avoided, as these will likely increase rather than decrease aggression since they increase anxiety, fear and defensive responses.

Most dogs tend to be of a manageable temperament regardless of size, but it's pretty indisputable that the smaller breeds do tend to behave more aggressively.

If little dogs snap and bite more frequently than big dogs do, the more likely explanation is that they are less well trained by their owners.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yeah, and people are trying to tell you that for the most part, it's the OWNERS, not the dogs, who are the source of those attacks. A poorly-trained dog of any breed can attack without warning or obvious provocation.

Pit-bulls are often kept by those who want an intimidating dog, and they encourage aggressiveness. Trained properly, a pit bull is no more dangerous or aggressive than any other properly trained dog.

I've been looking at several articles, and most of them tend to agree that the worst dog for unprovoked attacks is the Chihuahua, followed closely by the Dachshund.

Bad dogs have bad owners.

You can breed a temperament into a dog, just as you can make them a different colour or shape. Pitbulls have been bred to be vicious, aggressive and deadly. Even trained dogs have will revert, and you can't predict what will make them revert.