Pit bulls and other "dangerous" dog breeds

professorchaos · Dec 4, 2014

Hi!

I start this thread instead of further replying in the other thread about pit bulls to avoid getting too off-topic there.

I think this is an interesting issue and I know my opinion on the matter, even though I will admit I am definately not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to this. As with everything I am happy to learn more though!

Basically my viewpoint is that I think dogs that have been bred for different kinds of baiting, been used regularly in dog fights and are known to be powerful dogs capable of inflicting great damage on humans and other dogs alike are not "good" or "suitable" as pets.

I mean, these are breeds that have proven to be repeatedly killing and seriously injuring people. I don't have any statistical data on this though, so I will not say more about that. If anyone else does have good data on fatal dog attacks or the like I'd be interested in seeing what it looks like, especially when put in relation to how numerous the dogs are, to get a good idea of the "danger" of the specific breeds.

There are of course other factors though. If certain breeds attract a certain kind of owner then those breeds might be over-represented in the statistics not because of the qualities of the breed but because of those of the owners. I think that's good to keep in mind too.

To expand a bit on what I said about breeds being used for what they were bred for; I realize of course that there are many dogs used as family dogs today which were bred for something else entirely, but my issue is more, why use the dangerous/baiting breeds? When there are so many dog breeds to choose from, why necessarily get a pit bull? I don't think huskies make good family dogs either, for example, but still there are alot of likely more suitable breeds to choose from.

Ari Meermans · Dec 4, 2014

My opinion is that while certain traits can be and are bred, a lot of a dog's personality and behavior hinges on its early treatment. There are five pits next door and they're the friendliest, funniest, and most docile little characters. My two, who are not pits, weren't socialized well enough (my fault); and while they are great with most adults, they are highly territorial asshats when it comes to other animals and small children.

heza · Dec 4, 2014

professorchaos said:
When there are so many dog breeds to choose from, why necessarily get a pit bull? I don't think huskies make good family dogs either, for example, but still there are alot of likely more suitable breeds to choose from.

In my opinion, pits are chosen as pets by three types of people: 1) Those who realize the breed, when properly socialized, trained, and handled with a firm but loving hand can make excellent pets, 2) those who consider the tough reputation of the dog to be a reflection of themselves, and 3) those well-meaning folks who see there are so very many pits abandoned, neglected, and abused and that they're most prone to being euthanized in shelters. For many, it's a mission of compassion.

All those groups can be equally inclusive, just as many owners might belong exclusively to one group.

Many people adopt pits because there are many pits who need to be adopted, and they aren't afraid of the breed.

All dogs can be dangerous to someone. It's a good owner's job to know their dog and to prevent the dog from being in a position to cause trouble.

MaryMumsy · Dec 4, 2014

All dogs can be dangerous to someone. It's a good owner's job to know their dog and to prevent the dog from being in a position to cause trouble. __________________

This. I know pits that are sweet and loving. I have known chihuahuas that were the meanest nastiest dogs you ever met. You can't make sweeping claims across breeds. And *any* dog will bite under the right circumstances. I was bitten by our family dog when I was about 3. Nothing serious. But I had walked up to where the dog was sleeping on the bed, picked up her ear, and bit it. The dog did not get punished, but I did

.

MM

Tazlima · Dec 4, 2014

heza said:
All dogs can be dangerous to someone.

This. I knew a girl in high school who had her hamstring severed by a chihuahua.

If a critter has teeth, it can do damage.

veinglory · Dec 4, 2014

An analysis of the role of breed is linked below, it is missing some of the most recent research but the picture remains generally the same. Bigger dogs are more likely to do harm, dogs a lot of people own are involved in a lot of bites without being any more "dangerous", but there is really no overall evidence that pit bull type dogs are more dangerous than other dogs of medium and large sizes. In terms of real aggressions (propensity to bite) small dogs and spaniels tend to top the list but they do less damage.

There is empirical evidence that neutering the dog, not letting them roam, socialization/training, and enforcement of animal control ordinances does reduce bites. Studies of BSL legislation are equivocal at best and consistent with them having zero effectiveness or something very close to it so that the benefits were not measurable. So IMHO communities should focus on doing what is known to work in encouraging/making dog owners be responsible rather than suppressing the current bad image breed. In the 1900s it was great danes, in northern Canada it is sled dogs and huskies--because people who suck makes dogs dangerous, with whatever dog they can get hold of.

Thus endeth the sci-rant.

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/L...of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

Locke · Dec 4, 2014

professorchaos said:
To expand a bit on what I said about breeds being used for what they were bred for; I realize of course that there are many dogs used as family dogs today which were bred for something else entirely, but my issue is more, why use the dangerous/baiting breeds? When there are so many dog breeds to choose from, why necessarily get a pit bull? I don't think huskies make good family dogs either, for example, but still there are alot of likely more suitable breeds to choose from.

My main counterpoint to this is that there are areas in multiple countries where animal shelters are dangerously overcrowded, and households wishing to bring a new pet into their home should strongly consider visiting a shelter. These shelters will often ship animals out to other rescues in order to move animals from places with large stray populations into areas where the stray population is more controlled. Instead of picking a dog because of its breed, families can instead pick a dog because of its personality. If the mid-sized dog who's incredibly sweet and loving happens to be a pit, then damn the preconceptions. Plus many shelters are staffed by volunteers who are very careful about vetting both the animal and the prospective owners, and the better they get to know either, the better they can recommend a good match.

Personally, I'm strongly opposed to the idea of shopping for a family pet as if it were a car or a television. These are living creatures, not accoutrement to beautify, impress, or entertain. Yet so many people who are visiting breeders are looking for exactly that: an accessory.

It's certainly not a clear-cut issue, but the bottom line is that these dogs are already there, and seeking one breed just because you don't want one of another without ever meeting them is exacerbating the problem.

cmhbob · Dec 4, 2014

I've heard (anecdotally) that small dogs bite more often, but big dogs do more damage, and that this tends to skew the statistics, since only bites that require treatment are "reported," and those bites tend to be from bigger dogs.

I Googled "small dogs bite more" and got a few interesting results:
Most aggressive dogs by report in NYC, 2011:http://nypost.com/2011/02/18/tiny-dogs-major-culprits-behind-record-number-of-bites/ (Pits were #1, but Shih Tzu and Chihuahua were #3 and #4.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the-3-most-aggressive-dog-breeds-may-surprise-you.html This links to a survey of dog owners, which seems to be better than just looking at reports. That survey of 6,000 dog owners lists: Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, and Jack Russells as the top 3 aggressive dogs.

I really don't think one breed is more aggressive than any other. I truly think it's about the dog.

professorchaos · Dec 4, 2014

veinglory said:
An analysis of the role of breed is linked below, it is missing some of the most recent research but the picture remains generally the same. Bigger dogs are more likely to do harm, dogs a lot of people own are involved in a lot of bites without being any more "dangerous", but there is really no overall evidence that pit bull type dogs are more dangerous than other dogs of medium and large sizes. In terms of real aggressions (propensity to bite) small dogs and spaniels tend to top the list but they do less damage.

There is empirical evidence that neutering the dog, not letting them roam, socialization/training, and enforcement of animal control ordinances does reduce bites. Studies of BSL legislation are equivocal at best and consistent with them having zero effectiveness or something very close to it so that the benefits were not measurable. So IMHO communities should focus on doing what is known to work in encouraging/making dog owners be responsible rather than suppressing the current bad image breed. In the 1900s it was great danes, in northern Canada it is sled dogs and huskies--because people who suck makes dogs dangerous, with whatever dog they can get hold of.

Thus endeth the sci-rant.

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/L...of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

Hmm... okay, but...

The article does say that pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified in biting incidents resulting in very severe injuries or fatalities.

professorchaos · Dec 4, 2014

cmhbob said:
I've heard (anecdotally) that small dogs bite more often, but big dogs do more damage, and that this tends to skew the statistics, since only bites that require treatment are "reported," and those bites tend to be from bigger dogs.

I Googled "small dogs bite more" and got a few interesting results:
Most aggressive dogs by report in NYC, 2011:http://nypost.com/2011/02/18/tiny-dogs-major-culprits-behind-record-number-of-bites/ (Pits were #1, but Shih Tzu and Chihuahua were #3 and #4.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the-3-most-aggressive-dog-breeds-may-surprise-you.html This links to a survey of dog owners, which seems to be better than just looking at reports. That survey of 6,000 dog owners lists: Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, and Jack Russells as the top 3 aggressive dogs.

I really don't think one breed is more aggressive than any other. I truly think it's about the dog.

The thing is it's not really about which dogs are aggressive, but which dogs are likely to inflict serious damage. Which isn't the same thing.

cmhbob · Dec 4, 2014

professorchaos said:
The thing is it's not really about which dogs are aggressive, but which dogs are likely to inflict serious damage. Which isn't the same thing.

True, and good point, but does that mean that all big dogs should be banned (and I know you weren't suggesting that)?

What does it mean?

professorchaos · Dec 4, 2014

cmhbob said:
True, and good point, but does that mean that all big dogs should be banned (and I know you weren't suggesting that)?

What does it mean?

No, because all big dogs supposedly don't have the same likeliness to be associated with severe injuries and fatalities.

I would argue it simply means that some breeds may be more dangerous than others (for various reasons). Then you can do what you want with that conclusion. Some countries do have legal restrictions on certain dog breeds.

Locke · Dec 4, 2014

What are you advocating, specifically? Outlawing the ownership of certain breeds? Regulating licensing and breeding? Mandatory euthanasia?

The bottom line I think a lot of people ignore is that if it weren't for the intervention of mankind, there wouldn't be breeds of dogs to begin with.

Unimportant · Dec 4, 2014

professorchaos said:
I would argue it simply means that some breeds may be more dangerous than others (for various reasons).

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The structure of the jaw has a lot to do with how much damage a bite will inflict, and breeds differ in jaw structure. The parts of the human body a dog can reach to bite has a lot to do with how much damage a bite will inflict, and breeds differ in size/height/reach.

Not sure what your question/point of the thread is, though?

professorchaos · Dec 4, 2014

Locke said:
What are you advocating, specifically? Outlawing the ownership of certain breeds? Regulating licensing and breeding? Mandatory euthanasia?

The bottom line I think a lot of people ignore is that if it weren't for the intervention of mankind, there wouldn't be breeds of dogs to begin with.

I'm not really advocating anything specifically. I just think it seems unnecessary to choose dog breeds which there's indications they might be more dangerous than other breeds.

Really though, people are free to do what they want as long as it's not illegal. I do think the main thing with dogs is to do your best to bring your dog up to be a stable and happy individual. However you should always keep in mind the properties of the breed you choose, and do your research about it.

Ken · Dec 4, 2014

was going to make a dog in a story a pitbull as it had a mean streak
but then I was like, why reinforce a stereotype, whether deserved or not
so I changed it to another breed

professorchaos · Dec 4, 2014

Unimportant said:
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The structure of the jaw has a lot to do with how much damage a bite will inflict, and breeds differ in jaw structure. The parts of the human body a dog can reach to bite has a lot to do with how much damage a bite will inflict, and breeds differ in size/height/reach.

Not sure what your question/point of the thread is, though?

The point of the thread is to not derail another thread with off-topic posts. My initial post was a reply to a post in that thread. That's probably the reason this thread might feel a bit aimless.

professorchaos · Dec 4, 2014

Ken said:
was going to make a dog in a story a pitbull as it had a mean streak
but then I was like, why reinforce a stereotype, whether deserved or not
so I changed it to another breed

I think that's good. I would probably roll my eyes a bit if I read about a mean dog and ooohhh of cooourse it's a pit bull, how convenient. Another breed would make it seem more real to me, and less like someone was writing about a mean dog.

Locke · Dec 4, 2014

professorchaos said:
I'm not really advocating anything specifically. I just think it seems unnecessary to choose dog breeds which there's indications they might be more dangerous than other breeds.

Really though, people are free to do what they want as long as it's not illegal. I do think the main thing with dogs is to do your best to bring your dog up to be a stable and happy individual. However you should always keep in mind the properties of the breed you choose, and do your research about it.

But there's always the counterpoint: occasionally, it's the dog that gets chosen for ownership, not the breed. I understand your point, sure, but your question seems to be focused on general breed characteristics, while dogs of the same breed can have dramatically different personalities. Mr. and Mrs. Jones might have a rotty, but that might just be because that rotty loves to play fetch with their daughter.

Ken · Dec 4, 2014

professorchaos said:
I think that's good. I would probably roll my eyes a bit if I read about a mean dog and ooohhh of cooourse it's a pit bull, how convenient. Another breed would make it seem more real to me, and less like someone was writing about a mean dog.

Cool. Thnx for the feedback ^..^

Unimportant · Dec 4, 2014

professorchaos said:
I just think it seems unnecessary to choose dog breeds which there's indications they might be more dangerous than other breeds.

For some people, though, that is the point of the choice (e.g., someone living alone rurally might choose for protection a dog that others could perceive as 'dangerous', rightly or wrongly, based on the breed's reputation).

buz · Dec 4, 2014

Locke said:
But there's always the counterpoint: occasionally, it's the dog that gets chosen for ownership, not the breed.

This.

When it's about companionship, it's often down to the individual dog, IMO.

I wasn't even looking for a dog--I love dogs but thought the timing wasn't right--and never thought to myself "you know, one day I think I'd like a pit bull," but...I was working at the Humane Society and this thing happened where I fell hopelessly stupid-faced in love with a dog. Who happened to be a pit.

I talked about it with family and stuff and we made it work. Because I...cried like a fucking baby when I thought about not adopting her.

That's why I have a pit. Not because she's a pit, but because she's Her.

LittlePinto · Dec 4, 2014

I've been involved in animal rescue for quite some time and, in the past, worked as an adoption counselor. There are a lot of different reasons why people look for specific breeds.

1.) Some people want working, sport, or show dogs. These people go to professional breeders with established kennels who turn out champions every litter.

2.) Some people want accessories. These people go to backyard breeders or pet stores. After a few months they tire of the animal and surrender it to the shelter.

3.) Most people want companion animals. These people go to a wide variety of sources. However, when you actually talk to them, they aren't interested in a breed because it is a "Breed." They are interested in a breed because of the breed characteristics. Some people, for instance, are looking for 75 lb. laid-back gluttons who will play ball with the kids and swim in the lake. Therefore, they come in looking for a Labrador Retriever. However, if you have another dog that meets those criteria then they will happily take a look. Appearance is usually fairly low on the list. More often then not, they'll even go with a different breed than they initially were thinking of because the specific animal fits their lifestyle so well.

For some people, however, they want those traits and a specific breed. The reasons for that vary greatly. Some people have insurance companies or landlords who restrict their choices. Some people need a dog for a specific purpose where the appearance of the dog makes a difference. Whatever the reason, the rescue community can help them too. I just put them in touch with the nearest breed specific rescue.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that there are a lot more good adopters out there than bad ones. People aren't nearly as governed by appearance or breed as it may seem.

Alternatively, I was just really good at my job.

heza · Dec 5, 2014

Locke said:
It's certainly not a clear-cut issue, but the bottom line is that these dogs are already there, and seeking one breed just because you don't want one of another without ever meeting them is exacerbating the problem.

I agree with the general principle, but want to point out that it's okay for people to avoid certain breeds that they know they're incapable of caring for properly. For example, even though I think they can make wonderful pets, I will probably never try to own a pit dog because I'm not the personality type to be a pack leader, which I think is essential for the bigger, stronger dogs you pretty much need to be able to control by will. Even very large dogs who don't have the same propensities would be difficult for me because I can't physically restrain them. And I steer away from very, very active dogs because of my physical limitations. So know yourself and what you can handle, but yes, adopt mostly based on personality.

professorchaos said:
I'm not really advocating anything specifically. I just think it seems unnecessary to choose dog breeds which there's indications they might be more dangerous than other breeds.

Since you started this thread about fighting and baiting dogs, I'm going to assume what you mean is that "it seems unnecessary to choose a pit as a pet when there are safer breeds out there to choose from."

If that's the case... and knowing how many rescued, homeless, abused, neglected, unwanted pits there are in shelters right now... if you're advocating that people choose different breeds, what are we supposed to do with all of the unwanted pits? Because that's the problem with your musings. If there were way fewer pits out there that needed homes, there would be way fewer homes with pits in them.

Okelly65 · Dec 5, 2014

If you dont like them, dont own one. If a pit or any other breed attacks and injures a person put it down unless that person was tormenting the dog or trying to hurt its master.

Beyond that I tend to ignore Pit haters for the simple fact I have had a pit for Nine years who has never once attacked or even growled at another person, much less been aggressive with people or the other animals I have, she and the cat even bathe each other and sleep together.

Best dog Ive owned and I will not ever allow another person or even the "Law" to dictate what happens to my dog unless my dog becomes a danger to others and then I will put her down myself I owe her that much.

To be honest every twenty years some group of people pick a breed and proclaim it to be the most violent and aggressive dog to ever exist, German Shepard's, Rots, Dobermans, the list goes on, and the media digs to find any report they can to support the view.

100, 000+ Pits in the US, and only a handful of incidents are on record each year.

Pit bulls and other "dangerous" dog breeds

professorchaos

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter

heza

MaryMumsy

the original blond bombshell

Tazlima

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Locke

Lost the instruction manual

cmhbob

Did...did I do that?

professorchaos

professorchaos

cmhbob

Did...did I do that?

professorchaos

Locke

Lost the instruction manual

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.

professorchaos

Ken

professorchaos

professorchaos

Locke

Lost the instruction manual

Ken

Unimportant

No COVID yet. Still masking.

buz

edits all posts at least four times

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused

heza

Okelly65

practical experience, FTW