Any big & powerful dog with a strong bite like the pit bull has the capacity to seriously harm & potentially kill a person, and since you can't count on every pit bull owner to responsibly train their pets, they do become a liability when in public. Pit bulls are also a popular breed in the illegal dogfighting scene, so violently dangerous dogs that have been bred to be violently dangerous are guaranteed to exist.
Even so, it's rather unfair to treat every single pit bull like a menace when non-aggressive pit bulls that are affectionate towards strangers are not uncommon. Laws requiring big dogs to be muzzled should suffice; banning the entire breed from public (or, in some places, from even existing) seems excessive to me.
Edit: …well, at least in this comment, most of my points still stand. I should add that pit bulls are not only popular for dogfighting, but also a favorite of criminals in general, so much so that their demand is actively driving the breed to be even more violently dangerous than ever before. This has become such a serious problem that unaggressive pit bulls are nowadays unlikely to be purebred.
I guess it's still unfair to treat every single pit bull (or, rather, every dog that resembles a pit bull) like a menace, but it'd also be unfair to blame anyone for treating them as such, so long as breeders continue to select for stronger, more aggressive, more dangerous traits.
My friend's pit bull got attacked by a Chihuahua and had no idea what to do about it except sulk all day after it was over. To me, blaming pit bulls for violence is like blaming BMWs for not using turn signals
Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don't see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.
Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don’t see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.
This is factually wrong. I have a copy/paste from reddit I've already dumped… Here's a copy.
If that were the case, I'd expect that per capita pit bulls would then be equal to all other breeds or at the base minimum to represent their population, so if a pit population is 10% of all dogs, then they should account for 10% of all dog-related deaths. This is a little facetious though as little Pomeranians aren't going to kill anyone… So let's look at a number of breeds to determine what could be a valid number…
So how can we account for pitbulls accounting for 7.4% of all dogs and commiting ~66% of all dog-based fatalities when…
Rottweilers are 2.4% of dog population and commit about 10% of the murders recorded.
German Shepherd are 8.5% of the dog population accounting for ~5% murders. (beating population value even though they're large dogs)
Huskies are 2.3% of the population and account for 3% of the murders
How about a dog bred to kill bears??? Akitas… 0.4% of the population… doesn't even come up on the murder table… so less than 0.5%…
How can we account for this massive disparity? You really think that ONLY pitbulls are mistreated, untrained, and raised improperly? So all Rottweilers and German Shepherds are trained perfectly? Yes, I can agree with you that an abused dog will absolutely lash out and hurt humans… I cannot agree with you that this is the deciding or only factor. Otherwise we would have seen it with other breeds as bad owners are everywhere. Breeds like Akita's show that you can be breed for fighting and not be aggressive towards humans. Pit bulls simply were bred for aggression, you can't always train it out of them, and it only takes one slip.
Source for fatality rates: https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatality-report-2005-2017.php
Source for population percentage rates: https://www.animals24-7.org/2021/07/07/dog-breed-census-2021-labs-hounds-top-list-pit-bulls-come-in-third/
The CDC had done a study once & gotten similar statistics to what you've quoted, but ultimately they concluded that the data was flawed & unreliable. However, as I learn more about what's going on, the big picture gets more depressing…
Pit bulls are indeed disproportionately mistreated & improperly trained, far more than any other breed of dog. They're the breed of choice for drug dealers and gangsters in the US, and account for the vast majority of dogs seized by police at dogfighting operations. This isn't by coincidence, as pit bulls have always had a variety of traits that make them ideal for dogfighting.
Originally pit bulls weren't bred to be overly aggressive (even in dogfighting, indiscriminate aggression isn't a desirable trait), but modern pit bulls absolutely are, and this trend is only getting worse as breeders continue to select for increased strength & aggression, traits considered desirable by the criminals & lowlifes that now drive the demand for purebred pit bulls. The CDC suspects that there is a gross misattribution of fatal dog attacks to pit bulls, but now this seems unlikely. In fact, pit bulls that have a reputation for being unaggressive, including the ones that I've personally met, are unlikely to be purebred, and are most probably mutts that merely resemble the breed, if not the descendants of an ever-shrinking lineage that has avoided the vile trends that now plague the modern pit bull.
For me, this has all been very disheartening to discover. When I see the face of a pit bull, I'm reminded of the jolly dogs I used to play with as a kid, not the modern monsters responsible for a growing body count. It was very easy for me to disbelieve, and I'm sure many of the folks who are quick to defend the breed feel the same way…
Pit bulls are indeed disproportionately mistreated & improperly trained, far more than any other breed of dog. They’re the breed of choice for drug dealers and gangsters in the US, and account for the vast majority of dogs seized by police at dogfighting operations.
So your response… is that Pitbulls make up 66% of attacks… out of TENS OF MILLIONS of dogs (encompassing hundreds of thousands of attacks)… is that they're all drug dealers dogs?
Here… let's try this again…
Pick any month you want… But I'll link 2 examples…
Let me know how many attacks you had to scroll by in order to find even one that was "drug related". If you get anything higher than 1:9 ratio (10% that they're drug related)… I'll back off my argument and completely support you that it must be the owners.
In fact, pit bulls that have a reputation for being unaggressive
This isn't a fact… it's a well known fact that they were trained to fight… period. Definitionally that's "aggressive".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
The start of the whole breed is literally to fight.
The term has been used since at least early 20th century.[17][3] It is believed all dogs that are now classified as pit bulls descend from the British bull and terrier, which were first imported into North America in the 1870s.[6][7] The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting, it was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier.[6][7] The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog.[6][7][8] To produce a lighter, faster more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.[6][7][8]
Now I'll admit that Wikipedia isn't the end all be all… But this is well cited… and well known.
I don't know of a lot of 6-12 year olds that hang out with drug dealers. But even given that "some" might have… The study DID control for demographics.
I wasn't implying that they're all drug dealers' dogs… the point I was making is that the breed is heavily favored by criminals & associated groups that desire an aggressive dog. These groups influence pit bull breeders, who in turn select for aggression, but these same breeders also sell to people who don't associate with such groups and might be unaware of these breeders' practices.
When I say aggression, I usually mean aggression specifically towards people, which seems to be peculiarly intense in pit bulls. Aggression towards other dogs is a given for any dogfighting breed.
I didn't say pit bulls have a reputation for being unaggressive… did you even bother to read what I actually said? I said ‘pit bulls’ that have such a reputation are unlikely to actually be purebred pitbulls, since one would expect modern purebreds to be aggressive, and this might include the dogs I've met that I assumed were pit bulls.
I'm not sure what the point is of the last study you linked.
I've never known a pit bull that wasn't sweet but that doesn't dismiss the fact that a breed that was bred for violence can be dangerous. Many dogs may bite when upset or feel threatened. Pit bulls are known for continuing the attack in a frenzy and thus have a disproportionate number of deaths associated with them.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, there is no shortage of data which refutes this, and that's not even mentioning the methodological errors that studies which both support & refute the perceived dangers of pit bulls tend to have.
As someone else mentioned, fatal dog attacks overall are rare, accounting for 30 to 50 deaths per year in the US. For comparison, lightning kills on average 28 people per year in the US. Even when making the contentious assumption that pit bulls are responsible for most fatal dog attacks, such fatal attacks are still unlikely to happen.
Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Pit bulls can certainly be dangerous as a breed, but when compared to other dog breeds of comparable size, strength, & temperament, their reputation for being exceptionally violent & attacking “in a frenzy” is not only undeserved, it obscures the real danger of a trait that is (afaik) unique to most (but not all) pit bulls: they don't make overtly threatening gestures before attacking like other dogs do, and the subtle cues they do show are often missed, giving the impression that the ensuing attack is sudden & impulsive. While this trait alone does make the breed more dangerous & requires special consideration from owners, all the ignorance & fearmongering about pit bulls only serves to needlessly multiply this danger more and further polarlizes the issue.
I'd say the continuing existence & tolerance (and, in some places, full legality & acceptance) of dogfighting is the real issue, as the people involved are the ones who train/torture dogs until they become the vicious monsters that make headlines. Sadly, it is far easier to blame & persecute all the dogs from a few irreputable breeds than it is to uproot the entrenched criminal & inhumane activity that actively strives to make those breeds as dangerous as they're reputed to be.
If a big dog is calmly walking beside its owner on a leash & is well-behaved, why treat it like a menace, especially if it's also wearing a muzzle? Otherwise, I'd agree that we all should be wary around any dog, regardless of size, that's wandering on its own or acting strangely.
Could you please provide those stats? Skimming thru the Wikipedia article on pit bulls, it seems there's no clear evidence that pit bulls are significantly more dangerous that other dog breeds of similar size.
You mean these stats from a 32 your study of US and Canada from 1982 to 2009 that shows over 60% of dog attacks from from pitbulls?
Here's a collections of yearly reported dog attacks.
LMFAO, alright reading this thread again… the person gave up talking to you because you cited sources. And here I was about to dig through my reddit posts to grab my copy-pasta… They won't respond to you, so I assume they wont to me… So no point in putting the work in if they're arguing in such bad faith.
I am surprised the first response I got was not an attack. The pro pit propaganda runs hard and encouraged pretty rabbid harassment. I don't blame people that don't know for defending pits. It's the ones that argue in bad faith and ignore obvious data that are the problem. There's a reason why pits, and only pits, need to be defended so aggressively. All it takes is just googling reports of actual dog attacks to see almost all of the reports involved a pit or pit mix. Hell all you have to do is Google pictures of pitbulls vs porcupines and then compare those to literally any other dog breed vs porcupines. Normal dogs take a hit and get deterred out of their natural survival and pain avoidance instincts. Pits just maul them harder till they all but kill themselves. That's what happens when you breed some poor animal to fight to the death against other animals. It's tragic what we have bred into these dogs and even more tragic that instead of taking responsibility for it and at least attempting to breed it out and/or restrict breeding, we double down and make more and more lies about them that get innocent people maimed and killed. Then when people try to point all this out they get harassed to no end.
You're preaching to the choir. I still visit reddit without logging in sometimes to visit /r/banpitbulls specifically just to see the monthly tallies… It's sad that hundreds of people can have their lives changed every month… But nah, velvet hippo (completely missing the fact that hippos are STUPID dangerous… like I'll take my chances with any snake/spider/etc…).
Also another fact that gets brought up is that chihuahuas and pomeranians bite more often!.. Right… and maybe drew blood on accident? Pitbulls just rip your hand off… then go for your neck. If that's the defense… it's a terrible one… and they never admit it.
You mean those weird ass stats where they even agree that evidence is based off of looking at a picture where they admit they barely know it half the time?
That's like saying driving a sports car is more dangerous than a regular car. In some sense, yes it is, but at the same time it's not the cars fault that the driver irresponsible.
Where is all this pit bull hate coming from? They're not anymore dangerous to people than other breeds of similar size, yet they get such a disproportionate amount of blame. I'm not sure why.
Since 2016, at least 65 different breeds and mixed breeds have been involved in fatal dog attacks in the U.S. including: Akita, Boxer, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd, Great Dane, Husky, Labrador Retriever, Mastiff, Pitbull-Type, Rottweiler, and many others.
The risk of being fatally attacked by a dog (of any breed) given an average of 33 fatal attacks every year in the U.S. and a population of 330,000,000. According to CDC data, fatal dog attacks are exceedingly rare - lightning strikes cause more fatalities (~36/year) than dogs.
No, it's like saying garbage trucks haul more garbage than normal vehicles. Because while people may transport trash in their vehicles, dump trucks were created for the specific purpose of hauling trash.
No they aren't. They're only a problem when not raised right. They DO need a firmer hand in training like literally every strong breed, which not all owners realise and take into account, but neglecting that isn't their fault, it's on the bad owners.
You pointed out the solution: nobody should be allowed to keeep a dog unless they can prove they know how to correctly train and keep a dog. If the owners are the problem, the owners should be held accountable.
Well, as long as we cannot be sure whether a dog owner has done their duty and properly trained the dog, we can never be sure whether a stranger's dog is well trained or a purpously-trained killing machine. Or anything in between.
Come to think about that: to operate a car, motorcycle, boat or aeroplane you need to get a license, proving that you know what you are doing. Depending on vehicle and jurisdiction, you might even need to re-take tests frequently. All of these vehicles (in most jurisdictions) require frequent inspections and if they fail these inspections, you are no longer allowed to operate them.
Also, there are very stringent laws on how you are allowed to operate these vehicles, with really harsh fines for violations of these laws.
Looks like your stance on dog ownership is much more hardcore than mine, but I could get behind that.
Were you personally attacked by a pit bull, or was someone who's close to you attacked? Your stance comes across as really paranoid, like you have a reason to fear dogs.
I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don't care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.
And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like "The dog has never done anything like that". That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.
I don't think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.
I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.
That's extremely unfortunate. Of the many many dogs I've come across, big & small, including a few strays that I was unwise to approach so casually, I've never been bitten or attacked. Perhaps I was merely fortunate. Knowing what you've gone through, your stance is understandable, although I don't entirely agree with it. Yes, all dogs in public should be leashed, although I find it unnecessary to put a muzzle on all but the largest dogs who have the actual strength to cause serious harm. I definitely don't agree with any sort of licensing or routine inspection for dog owners, but I get why you would think this is necessary… perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree.
Man, I have to wonder, what are your thoughts on gun control? I mean the yearly dog inspector is great but like, what about social services? You think there is room in the budget to provide care for the less fortunate?
Cesar Milan is considered a hack by almost every reputable dog trainer, and his methods conflict with every modern study I have seen on how to effectively train a dog.
I mean, you can Google it and find countless sources, if you really care they are readily available within seconds.
The Tl;dr is that his methods are based in dominance theory. Dominance theory has been widely debunked and the methods that arose from it are widely considered to exacerbate fear and aggression related issues in dogs. Caesar’s celebrity status has contributed to its persistence in the popular imagination.
The discussion is literally that there are bad owners and those owners are solely responsible for the pit bulls reputation. I'm proving that wrong by showing an "expert" in the field… If an expert in the field cannot do it… Then why would a lay person be able to?
This isn't argument from authority. You just like screaming random shit to shut down discussions because you don't have any better evidence against the argument.
How does that say anything about pit bulls in general? Someone else brought up the fact that labs and German shepherds bite just as much as pit bulls. Where's the scaremongering about labs? Oh wait, they're the choice breed for service dogs? Maybe it's not the breed then.
I'm directly refuting the point that Pit Bulls are not bad, just their owners are. I don't give a shit about German Shepherds because there's isn't a disproportionate amount of them causing harm to humans.
I didn't believe it at first, but it seems my doubt was misplaced.
You would think that a supposed professional dog trainer, who allegedly was aware that his dog was aggressive and had a history of biting other dogs, wouldn't just let such a dog wander around unattended. I guess he was too proud to admit he couldn't correct this dog's behavior.
Training and keeping control of their dogs. Like any breed, pit bulls have needs in order to be happy and well-adjusted dogs. Relevant here is that, just like any strong dog with the possible exception of some of the gentle giants, they need extra discipline and a firmer touch in training.
A properly trained and socialised pit bull that's treated well will not attack people or other dogs, whereas untrained and/or not properly socialised dogs of ANY breed are likely to develop problem behaviour, which can include aggression.
Cue all the "pit bulls are predetermined to be unstoppable killing machines and should never be allowed in public" nonsense comments 🙄
Adorable pup though ❤️
Any big & powerful dog with a strong bite like the pit bull has the capacity to seriously harm & potentially kill a person, and since you can't count on every pit bull owner to responsibly train their pets, they do become a liability when in public. Pit bulls are also a popular breed in the illegal dogfighting scene, so violently dangerous dogs that have been bred to be violently dangerous are guaranteed to exist.
Even so, it's rather unfair to treat every single pit bull like a menace when non-aggressive pit bulls that are affectionate towards strangers are not uncommon. Laws requiring big dogs to be muzzled should suffice; banning the entire breed from public (or, in some places, from even existing) seems excessive to me.
Edit: …well, at least in this comment, most of my points still stand. I should add that pit bulls are not only popular for dogfighting, but also a favorite of criminals in general, so much so that their demand is actively driving the breed to be even more violently dangerous than ever before. This has become such a serious problem that unaggressive pit bulls are nowadays unlikely to be purebred.
I guess it's still unfair to treat every single pit bull (or, rather, every dog that resembles a pit bull) like a menace, but it'd also be unfair to blame anyone for treating them as such, so long as breeders continue to select for stronger, more aggressive, more dangerous traits.
My friend's pit bull got attacked by a Chihuahua and had no idea what to do about it except sulk all day after it was over. To me, blaming pit bulls for violence is like blaming BMWs for not using turn signals
Exactly! Labradors and German shepherds, along with pit bulls, were responsible for more severe dog bites than other breeds, yet I don't see anyone demonizing labs & sheps like they do the pit bull. Its reputation is really undeserved.
This is factually wrong. I have a copy/paste from reddit I've already dumped… Here's a copy.
The CDC had done a study once & gotten similar statistics to what you've quoted, but ultimately they concluded that the data was flawed & unreliable. However, as I learn more about what's going on, the big picture gets more depressing…
Pit bulls are indeed disproportionately mistreated & improperly trained, far more than any other breed of dog. They're the breed of choice for drug dealers and gangsters in the US, and account for the vast majority of dogs seized by police at dogfighting operations. This isn't by coincidence, as pit bulls have always had a variety of traits that make them ideal for dogfighting.
Originally pit bulls weren't bred to be overly aggressive (even in dogfighting, indiscriminate aggression isn't a desirable trait), but modern pit bulls absolutely are, and this trend is only getting worse as breeders continue to select for increased strength & aggression, traits considered desirable by the criminals & lowlifes that now drive the demand for purebred pit bulls. The CDC suspects that there is a gross misattribution of fatal dog attacks to pit bulls, but now this seems unlikely. In fact, pit bulls that have a reputation for being unaggressive, including the ones that I've personally met, are unlikely to be purebred, and are most probably mutts that merely resemble the breed, if not the descendants of an ever-shrinking lineage that has avoided the vile trends that now plague the modern pit bull.
For me, this has all been very disheartening to discover. When I see the face of a pit bull, I'm reminded of the jolly dogs I used to play with as a kid, not the modern monsters responsible for a growing body count. It was very easy for me to disbelieve, and I'm sure many of the folks who are quick to defend the breed feel the same way…
So your response… is that Pitbulls make up 66% of attacks… out of TENS OF MILLIONS of dogs (encompassing hundreds of thousands of attacks)… is that they're all drug dealers dogs?
Here… let's try this again…
Pick any month you want… But I'll link 2 examples…
https://old.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/tuyivl/april_2022_list_of_pit_bull_attacksfatalities/
https://old.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/comments/102buat/january_2023_list_of_pit_bull_attacksfatalities/
Let me know how many attacks you had to scroll by in order to find even one that was "drug related". If you get anything higher than 1:9 ratio (10% that they're drug related)… I'll back off my argument and completely support you that it must be the owners.
This isn't a fact… it's a well known fact that they were trained to fight… period. Definitionally that's "aggressive". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
The start of the whole breed is literally to fight.
Now I'll admit that Wikipedia isn't the end all be all… But this is well cited… and well known.
Also… adding this study in because I can and because it really doesn't jive with your statements. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100808/
I don't know of a lot of 6-12 year olds that hang out with drug dealers. But even given that "some" might have… The study DID control for demographics.
I wasn't implying that they're all drug dealers' dogs… the point I was making is that the breed is heavily favored by criminals & associated groups that desire an aggressive dog. These groups influence pit bull breeders, who in turn select for aggression, but these same breeders also sell to people who don't associate with such groups and might be unaware of these breeders' practices.
When I say aggression, I usually mean aggression specifically towards people, which seems to be peculiarly intense in pit bulls. Aggression towards other dogs is a given for any dogfighting breed.
I didn't say pit bulls have a reputation for being unaggressive… did you even bother to read what I actually said? I said ‘pit bulls’ that have such a reputation are unlikely to actually be purebred pitbulls, since one would expect modern purebreds to be aggressive, and this might include the dogs I've met that I assumed were pit bulls.
I'm not sure what the point is of the last study you linked.
I don't think its undeserved at all. When it comes to fatal dog attacks, pit bulls are responsible for more than all the other breeds combined by a substantial margin. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/
I've never known a pit bull that wasn't sweet but that doesn't dismiss the fact that a breed that was bred for violence can be dangerous. Many dogs may bite when upset or feel threatened. Pit bulls are known for continuing the attack in a frenzy and thus have a disproportionate number of deaths associated with them.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, there is no shortage of data which refutes this, and that's not even mentioning the methodological errors that studies which both support & refute the perceived dangers of pit bulls tend to have.
As someone else mentioned, fatal dog attacks overall are rare, accounting for 30 to 50 deaths per year in the US. For comparison, lightning kills on average 28 people per year in the US. Even when making the contentious assumption that pit bulls are responsible for most fatal dog attacks, such fatal attacks are still unlikely to happen.
Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Pit bulls can certainly be dangerous as a breed, but when compared to other dog breeds of comparable size, strength, & temperament, their reputation for being exceptionally violent & attacking “in a frenzy” is not only undeserved, it obscures the real danger of a trait that is (afaik) unique to most (but not all) pit bulls: they don't make overtly threatening gestures before attacking like other dogs do, and the subtle cues they do show are often missed, giving the impression that the ensuing attack is sudden & impulsive. While this trait alone does make the breed more dangerous & requires special consideration from owners, all the ignorance & fearmongering about pit bulls only serves to needlessly multiply this danger more and further polarlizes the issue.
I'd say the continuing existence & tolerance (and, in some places, full legality & acceptance) of dogfighting is the real issue, as the people involved are the ones who train/torture dogs until they become the vicious monsters that make headlines. Sadly, it is far easier to blame & persecute all the dogs from a few irreputable breeds than it is to uproot the entrenched criminal & inhumane activity that actively strives to make those breeds as dangerous as they're reputed to be.
The correct way is to treat every big dog like a mennace.
If a big dog is calmly walking beside its owner on a leash & is well-behaved, why treat it like a menace, especially if it's also wearing a muzzle? Otherwise, I'd agree that we all should be wary around any dog, regardless of size, that's wandering on its own or acting strangely.
Putting a dog on a leash and muzzle it is how I'd treat a mennace. So I think we are mostly in agreement ;)
All dogs should be leashed when in public regardless of size, breed or training.
Total agreement.
They are tho. Look at stats.
Could you please provide those stats? Skimming thru the Wikipedia article on pit bulls, it seems there's no clear evidence that pit bulls are significantly more dangerous that other dog breeds of similar size.
https://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/2009-dog-attack-deaths-maminings-merritt-clifton.pdf
You mean these stats from a 32 your study of US and Canada from 1982 to 2009 that shows over 60% of dog attacks from from pitbulls? Here's a collections of yearly reported dog attacks.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities.php
Here's a few studies on the medical significance of dog bites and breed.
https://www.nationalpitbullvictimawareness.org/articles/medical-studies-on-pit-bulls/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100808/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51034290_Mortality_Mauling_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261032/
https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/press-releases/complex-dog-bites-in-children-experience-and-recommended-treatment
And how about breed specific behavior studies?
https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-016-2936-3
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/509315v1
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233995885_Breed_differences_in_canine_aggression
These are just a few of dozens of studies and reports that have been done on dogs attacks and biology.
The Fifth Estate also has a good video with proponents of both sides. https://youtu.be/iFa8HOdegZA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/iFa8HOdegZA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
LMFAO, alright reading this thread again… the person gave up talking to you because you cited sources. And here I was about to dig through my reddit posts to grab my copy-pasta… They won't respond to you, so I assume they wont to me… So no point in putting the work in if they're arguing in such bad faith.
Thanks for the logical and well-sourced post!
I am surprised the first response I got was not an attack. The pro pit propaganda runs hard and encouraged pretty rabbid harassment. I don't blame people that don't know for defending pits. It's the ones that argue in bad faith and ignore obvious data that are the problem. There's a reason why pits, and only pits, need to be defended so aggressively. All it takes is just googling reports of actual dog attacks to see almost all of the reports involved a pit or pit mix. Hell all you have to do is Google pictures of pitbulls vs porcupines and then compare those to literally any other dog breed vs porcupines. Normal dogs take a hit and get deterred out of their natural survival and pain avoidance instincts. Pits just maul them harder till they all but kill themselves. That's what happens when you breed some poor animal to fight to the death against other animals. It's tragic what we have bred into these dogs and even more tragic that instead of taking responsibility for it and at least attempting to breed it out and/or restrict breeding, we double down and make more and more lies about them that get innocent people maimed and killed. Then when people try to point all this out they get harassed to no end.
You're preaching to the choir. I still visit reddit without logging in sometimes to visit /r/banpitbulls specifically just to see the monthly tallies… It's sad that hundreds of people can have their lives changed every month… But nah, velvet hippo (completely missing the fact that hippos are STUPID dangerous… like I'll take my chances with any snake/spider/etc…).
Also another fact that gets brought up is that chihuahuas and pomeranians bite more often!.. Right… and maybe drew blood on accident? Pitbulls just rip your hand off… then go for your neck. If that's the defense… it's a terrible one… and they never admit it.
Don't use Wikipedia as your source, that's rule number one. Look at the cdc
You mean those weird ass stats where they even agree that evidence is based off of looking at a picture where they admit they barely know it half the time?
Those statistics?
Why is it controversial to point out that pitbulls bite more because they were bred for it?
My Australian shepherd herds things, never taught them that. Retrievers retrieve things. Pitbulls maul things. That's what they were all bred for.
Now if you really want to do some research look up how much money is spent on pro - Pitbull lobbying and misinformation
But its not a crab, how can it be good if at anything if no crabiness?
That's like saying driving a sports car is more dangerous than a regular car. In some sense, yes it is, but at the same time it's not the cars fault that the driver irresponsible.
This is only a valid comparison of the sports car could break out of the garage and hunt people down on its own will.
BMW's can
Don't give them ideas!
Actually thinking about it they might have a valid point… tesla FSD and all being what it is.
Is that common in your country? I can't remember last time I heard about a dog attack here
Over here yes. Happens quite often. Mostly when unsupervised children meet unsupervised dogs.
Does your country have pit bulls?
Where is all this pit bull hate coming from? They're not anymore dangerous to people than other breeds of similar size, yet they get such a disproportionate amount of blame. I'm not sure why.
Statistics… you can look up bite/ attack/ fatality statistics and pit bulls dominate the leaderboards.
https://www.fataldogattacks.org/
So even if pit bulls are the "dominant" killers, it's the "dominant" one out of 33 deaths. Which could be 3.
No, it's like saying garbage trucks haul more garbage than normal vehicles. Because while people may transport trash in their vehicles, dump trucks were created for the specific purpose of hauling trash.
No they aren't. They're only a problem when not raised right. They DO need a firmer hand in training like literally every strong breed, which not all owners realise and take into account, but neglecting that isn't their fault, it's on the bad owners.
You pointed out the solution: nobody should be allowed to keeep a dog unless they can prove they know how to correctly train and keep a dog. If the owners are the problem, the owners should be held accountable.
I completely agree. Can we stop with the rampant defamation of usually sweet dogs, then?
Well, as long as we cannot be sure whether a dog owner has done their duty and properly trained the dog, we can never be sure whether a stranger's dog is well trained or a purpously-trained killing machine. Or anything in between.
By that logic, we should ban cars, motorcycles, boats, aeroplanes, horses and almost all other dogs
Good luck with that…
deleted by creator
Come to think about that: to operate a car, motorcycle, boat or aeroplane you need to get a license, proving that you know what you are doing. Depending on vehicle and jurisdiction, you might even need to re-take tests frequently. All of these vehicles (in most jurisdictions) require frequent inspections and if they fail these inspections, you are no longer allowed to operate them.
Also, there are very stringent laws on how you are allowed to operate these vehicles, with really harsh fines for violations of these laws.
Looks like your stance on dog ownership is much more hardcore than mine, but I could get behind that.
You have to license dogs too. In both cases, a license does not mean safety.
Getting a license in america is not hard or stringent at all lmao.
Were you personally attacked by a pit bull, or was someone who's close to you attacked? Your stance comes across as really paranoid, like you have a reason to fear dogs.
I was attacked multiple times by dogs and I don't care what race they are. All dogs in public should be on a leash and muzzled.
And every time I was attacked I was just walking down the road and some random dog without leash or muzzle just attacked and bit me. And every time the owner was like "The dog has never done anything like that". That totally makes everything better. I always felt so honored that I was the first one that dog hurt. I still got scars on my shoulder from that one time and that was almost 20 years ago.
I don't think breed-based laws are a good idea, because they make it look like every other breed is not dangerous.
I think, all dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public and all owners should have to get a license that includes a test and yearly inspections first.
That's extremely unfortunate. Of the many many dogs I've come across, big & small, including a few strays that I was unwise to approach so casually, I've never been bitten or attacked. Perhaps I was merely fortunate. Knowing what you've gone through, your stance is understandable, although I don't entirely agree with it. Yes, all dogs in public should be leashed, although I find it unnecessary to put a muzzle on all but the largest dogs who have the actual strength to cause serious harm. I definitely don't agree with any sort of licensing or routine inspection for dog owners, but I get why you would think this is necessary… perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree.
Man, I have to wonder, what are your thoughts on gun control? I mean the yearly dog inspector is great but like, what about social services? You think there is room in the budget to provide care for the less fortunate?
https://www.tmz.com/2021/09/10/cesar-milan-queen-latifah-pit-bull-dog-junior-coverup-lawsuit/
So then when one of the premier dog trainers in the USA runs into significant issues with their pit bull… is it the dog or the owner?
Cesar Milan is considered a hack by almost every reputable dog trainer, and his methods conflict with every modern study I have seen on how to effectively train a dog.
Source? Citation? Anything?
I mean, you can Google it and find countless sources, if you really care they are readily available within seconds.
The Tl;dr is that his methods are based in dominance theory. Dominance theory has been widely debunked and the methods that arose from it are widely considered to exacerbate fear and aggression related issues in dogs. Caesar’s celebrity status has contributed to its persistence in the popular imagination.
It's Cesar Milan being a fraud who doesn't practice what he preaches.
Ah yes… the person with more than 25 years of experience must be wrong! Ya'll are a trip.
Did you even read the article? He left a poorly socialised dog untethered and unattended.
That would stil be extremely irresponsible dog ownership if he had been the undisputed king of dog trainers for 800 years.
Thus why the source should be questioned… it's TMZ, all trashy celebrity gossip. I doubt this incident even happened.
There are doctors with 25 years of experience that still fuck up constantly and get away with it.
Argument from authority is a fallacy for a reason.
The discussion is literally that there are bad owners and those owners are solely responsible for the pit bulls reputation. I'm proving that wrong by showing an "expert" in the field… If an expert in the field cannot do it… Then why would a lay person be able to?
This isn't argument from authority. You just like screaming random shit to shut down discussions because you don't have any better evidence against the argument.
You're citing a tabloid, not exactly a reliable source…
So you believe that cesar milan didn't have a pit bull and it didn't bite someone and didn't kill another dog?
You can literally pull up the court records if you want. Other sources can cover it perfectly fine.
https://www.citywatchla.com/animal-watch/22536-lawsuit-cesar-millan-s-pit-bull-kills-queen-latifah-s-dog-in-training-and-mauls-girl
https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/09/10/cesar-millans-pit-bull-killed-queen-latifahs-dog-attacked-star-gymnast-lawsuit-claims/
https://www.businessinsider.com/cesar-millan-covering-up-dogs-attack-on-queen-latifahs-dog-2021-9
What a weird hill to die on.
How does that say anything about pit bulls in general? Someone else brought up the fact that labs and German shepherds bite just as much as pit bulls. Where's the scaremongering about labs? Oh wait, they're the choice breed for service dogs? Maybe it's not the breed then.
I'm directly refuting the point that Pit Bulls are not bad, just their owners are. I don't give a shit about German Shepherds because there's isn't a disproportionate amount of them causing harm to humans.
I didn't believe it at first, but it seems my doubt was misplaced.
You would think that a supposed professional dog trainer, who allegedly was aware that his dog was aggressive and had a history of biting other dogs, wouldn't just let such a dog wander around unattended. I guess he was too proud to admit he couldn't correct this dog's behavior.
Since it was settled out of court there is zero truth to any of it. Not saying it didn't happen, but there is no proof that it happened either.
There's plenty of proof. Documents were submitted to court. Just because there was a settlement doesn't mean it didn't happen
Shhhh… I won't let those troublesome facts and statistics hurt you.
I've seen them all and none of them prove that it's inherent to all of them rather than the fault of their owners not being up to the job.
Which job are the owners not up to doing?
Training and keeping control of their dogs. Like any breed, pit bulls have needs in order to be happy and well-adjusted dogs. Relevant here is that, just like any strong dog with the possible exception of some of the gentle giants, they need extra discipline and a firmer touch in training.
A properly trained and socialised pit bull that's treated well will not attack people or other dogs, whereas untrained and/or not properly socialised dogs of ANY breed are likely to develop problem behaviour, which can include aggression.
Why do pits need "extra discipline" but labradors don't?
This is a tautological argument, because every pit who attacks another animal or person will just be written off as "improperly trained".