Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[GreNME]

"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)

Pretty good breakdown of some of the main premises in the book.

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.

Or a German shepherd, or a bull mastiff, or a great Dane, or a dalmatian, or a Rhodesian ridgeback, and so on, and so on.

I assume that when the ban is shown to have no effect on dog bites, it will be expanded to the next "Evil dog".

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).

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

Don't forget the "missing white girl crisis" that crops up every now and then (in US media, at least).

 

[Captain.Sassy]

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.

Really?

I quoted from the abstract; I included the title because I realised I had neglected to reference it previously.

No, because anti-social conditions produce anti-social dogs. Pit bulls are more susceptible to anti-social conditions.

What makes them more susceptible to anti-social conditions? By susceptibility, do you mean that they are more likely to be subjected to these conditions, or that once subjected to these conditions, they are more likely to display aggression than other breeds (which is certainly how your initial statement read).

If the latter, the breed is more dangerous.

If the former, then I still maintain that the onus is on you to show that the levels of abuse suffered by the pitbull population is sufficient to account for the disproportionate representation of pitbulls in studies of dog aggression; similarly, if you wish to discount the media reports because non-pitbull breeds are reported as pitbulls, you have to demonstrate that the misreporting is sufficient to overcome the disproportionate rate of reported pitbull attacks.

Of course, you can't do either of these things or you would have by now.

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.

I took a look at your Pitbull Pablum and frankly I'm surprised that that piece of... scholarship... built as it is on a rock-solid foundation of anecdote and conjecture... has passed the muster of one as wedded to the notion of empiricism as you make yourself out to be.

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

The actual evidence is in the paper. I quoted it from the abstract. How else would you like me to present it?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

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

Well at least you're keeping an open mind.

 

[GreNME]

Captain.Sassy, you posted a publication that cites actual studies and are claiming the validity of the studies without having posted a single shred of evidence from it. The publication you point to even presents caveats that the citations may be out of date and do not have representative inclusion of pit bulls. I've already pointed this out to you and yet you continue to assert that you've provided evidence. You've provided a third-party, caveat-laden reference to studies that do not actually provide what you are claiming they do (proof of inherent danger), and the link you've given doesn't say otherwise.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

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

From the Abstract:
"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."
.

 

[GlennB]

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.

Uh? Yes, I have agreed that tenacity=gameness , yet you call it ridiculous to use the word 'gameness'? Until not long ago, 'gameness' was used in the wording of the breed standard.

Then you give illustrations from dog shows where PBs win prizes for tenacity?

That's the whole damn point. In the words of the Animal Cops dog behaviour expert that I quoted already : "The trouble with these dogs is that they don't let go"

Tell us, GreNME - if a random member of the public were to get bitten by a seriously pissed-off dog, would you say that it might as well be a PB as any other dog of comparable size? or would you be concerned about that ol' tenacity?

C'mon. It's a simple question.

 

[GreNME]

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

From the Abstract:
"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."
.

Now, all you have to do is point out where inherent danger is being evidenced in that.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

That's going to be hard to do, the reports never give much on the owner, just the dog.

I can give you at least 10 cases where the owners were at questionable as the dogs, and 3 cases where the owners were responsible and the dogs were like puppies. Purely anecdotal, but honestly I've never seen this go any other way. Ever. I'm willing to bet we can find a lot of anecdotal evidence on this forum in support of this. All the people I know that want aggressive dogs have Rotties or Pitbulls and they are aggressive.
Come to think of it, I can't think of a single person I know with a big dog that is aggressive and they don't want it to be. But I can tell you I know of quite a few people with small dogs that have aggression problems. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[GreNME]

Uh? Yes, I have agreed that tenacity=gameness , yet you call it ridiculous to use the word 'gameness'? Until not long ago, 'gameness' was used in the wording of the breed standard.

Then you give illustrations from dog shows where PBs win prizes for tenacity?

That's the whole damn point. In the words of the Animal Cops dog behaviour expert that I quoted already : "The trouble with these dogs is that they don't let go"

The problem with your Animal Cops quote is that German shepherds don't let go, mastiffs don't let go, rottweilers don't let go, but the quote you're citing is referencing "these dogs" (meaning pit bulls) as if this is something remarkable about this breed.

Tell us, GreNME - if a random member of the public were to get bitten by a seriously pissed-off dog, would you say that it might as well be a PB as any other dog of comparable size? or would you be concerned about that ol' tenacity?

C'mon. It's a simple question.

Simple question? Would you like to go through this list of breeds and make some guesses about which ones would be capable of equal or more damage than the pit bull?

Come on, it's a simple question.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Now, all you have to do is point out where inherent danger is being evidenced in that.

Fractions.

Certain dogs are disproportionately represented.

 

[GlennB]

The problem with your Animal Cops quote is that German shepherds don't let go, mastiffs don't let go, rottweilers don't let go, but the quote you're citing is referencing "these dogs" (meaning pit bulls) as if this is something remarkable about this breed.

Evasion noted. Ditto your evasion on the 'break bar' issue.

But it's funny you mention Rots and GS's, because stats supported by the HSUS show them well down in numbers from PB's in the fatal attack figures.

How many people died or were maimed in the great Toyota 'sticky accelerator pedal' fiasco eh? Would it have been OK to say that Ford and Peugeot models also had slightly sticky pedals, so we could just ignore the Toyota problem?

Shame we can't eliminate dog danger so easily as to just issue a recall

Your cognitive dissonance is glowing like the 9/11 Truther who has been shown that thermite can't cut a vertical column ...

 

[GreNME]

Evasion noted. Ditto your evasion on the 'break bar' issue.

There's no evasion. You claim that the "don't let go" thing is something that makes pit bulls more dangerous than other dogs, but other dogs hold on and don't let go as well. Chances are you don't even understand what the difference is between the dogs I and and pit bull or other bully breeds regarding the "don't let go" misstatement you're quoting. You're just using it because it sounds menacing.

But it's funny you mention Rots and GS's, because stats supported by the HSUS show them well down in numbers from PB's in the fatal attack figures.

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), or you're aware and don't care about the incredibly flawed methodology of the information (as long as it confirms your conclusion), or you're just grasping at straws at this point and don't realize we've already been down this rhetorical path.

How many people died or were maimed in the great Toyota 'sticky accelerator pedal' fiasco eh? Would it have been OK to say that Ford and Peugeot models also had slightly sticky pedals, so we could just ignore the Toyota problem?

Actually, there were other manufacturers who had issued recalls during the time Toyota had. Before Toyota I believe Ford was one of those who had to recall due to floormats. But, hey, since the only company we heard about was Toyota then there must have been something exceptionally bad about Toyota's cars, right? That's what you seem to be implying.

You're inadvertently making my case for me: just like the hype about Toyota was overblown by the media and by individuals who were lying, the hype about the supposed inherent danger of pit bulls is overblown by the media and intellectually dishonest "Animal Rights" activism trying to eliminate pets.

Shame we can't eliminate dog danger so easily as to just issue a recall

Your cognitive dissonance is glowing like the 9/11 Truther who has been shown that thermite can't cut a vertical column ...

Nice try, but you're the one making assertions you can't back up.

 

[gnome]

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is demonstrated that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds. Does anyone have a practical remedy? If they are to be banned, how is it to be legally demonstrated what is a pit bull and what is not?

 

[GreNME]

Now, all you have to do is point out where inherent danger is being evidenced in that.

Fractions.

Certain dogs are disproportionately represented.

You really have no clue, do you?

Explain where inherent danger was established. Giving nonsense answers like "fractions" isn't even worth taking seriously since you apparently can't even identify percentages (which is what were being used in their sampling of 226 dogs, not "fractions") when talking about your own supposed evidence.

 

[GreNME]

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is demonstrated that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds. Does anyone have a practical remedy? If they are to be banned, how is it to be legally demonstrated what is a pit bull and what is not?

Didn't you know? It's easy.

ETA: here's an easy-to-recognize one.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

You really have no clue, do you?

Explain where inherent danger was established. Giving nonsense answers like "fractions" isn't even worth taking seriously since you apparently can't even identify percentages (which is what were being used in their sampling of 226 dogs, not "fractions") when talking about your own supposed evidence.

sorry
my bad
forgot about the differences between percentages and fractions
doh!

 

[GreNME]

How about actually explaining what is evidence in the study you're citing that supports your assertion of inherent danger? Really, since you're so insistent that the evidence is there you should be able to explain it using more than text-message-speak in your replies. All it would take is a few sentences, maybe a paragraph, explaining what in the study you're claiming as evidence shows regarding the inherent danger by way of breed.

 

[Furcifer]

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is demonstrated that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds. Does anyone have a practical remedy? If they are to be banned, how is it to be legally demonstrated what is a pit bull and what is not?

If she weighs the same as a duck she's made of wood and therefore...

A Pit!

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Edited by Locknar: 

Non-attributable quote removed; please quote members correctly.

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.

 

[Emet]

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.

I quoted the AVMA position-- I can quote the ASPCA just as readily:

The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bite by breed is fraught with potential sources of error.

Breed-specific laws must also be evaluated from a welfare perspective. Although intended to improve community safety and comfort, ultimately these laws can cause hardship to responsible guardians of properly supervised, friendly, well-socialized dogs.

Even laws that are ostensibly only regulatory may impose a de facto ban on a breed, creating a climate where it is nearly impossible for residents to live with such breed, and virtually ensuring destruction of otherwise adoptable dogs by shelters and humane societies.

Perhaps the most harmful unintended consequence of breed-specific laws is their tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. As certain breeds are regulated, individuals who exploit aggression in dogs are likely to turn to other, unregulated breeds.

Also of concern is the possibility that guardians of regulated or banned breeds will be driven "underground…making criminals of otherwise law-abiding people" and deterring them from having their dogs inoculated against rabies.

It must also be considered that if limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating animal sterilization and laws that require guardians of all dog breeds to control their pets.

It is, therefore, the ASPCA's position to oppose any state or local law to regulate or ban dogs based on breed. The ASPCA recognizes that dangerous dogs pose a community problem requiring serious attention. However, in light of the absence of scientific data indicating the efficacy of breed-specific laws, and the unfair and inhumane targeting of responsible pet guardians and their dogs that inevitably results when these laws are enacted, the ASPCA instead favors effective enforcement of a combination of breed-neutral laws that hold reckless dog guardians accountable for their dogs' aggressive behavior.

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.html

But carry on--keep engaging in picking apart posts one word at a time, one study at a time.
Did too; did not-- Show me the evidence; show me the studies.
Common sense and simple logic have no place here...

Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little
Cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more..