Why is there such endless debate about pitbull attacks?

One big reason is that there is no reliable reporting system linking dog bite incidents to breed. News reports jump all over any incident supposedly involving a pit bull (largely because it then has sensational value), while incidents that can’t be pinned on a pit bull hardly ever specify a breed (if it even gets reported at all).

Which brings up another problem: people are terrible at identifying dogs. Most dogs out there are mixed breeds, and without doing DNA testing, even vets and shelter workers have a miserable record in accurately identifying ancestry.

My dog, for instance, was listed by the shelter as a “lab/dalmation mix”. Many people look at him and immediately say he’s a pit bull. His DNA reveals that he’s 25% boxer, 25% pit bull, and the remaining 50% is too indistinct to identify (but definitely not lab or dalmation). But you can bet that if he were to bite someone, it would be reported as a “pit bull attack”. And so it goes: dogs get called pit bulls all the time whether or not they are, especially in bite incidents.

Much of the reputation of pit bulls has more to do with social anxiety toward the social elements with which they’re associated in the popular imagination: the urban underclass and criminal elements. They have become a proxy for the fears of the dominant culture about the threat posed by “undesirab!es”.

It’s interesting to me how my dog so often provokes a reaction of veiled aprehension among the “golden retreaver” set, whereas the black and hispanic people I encounter often exclaim about what a beautiful dog he is.

It is that the lay person thinks that a Pit Bull cannot let go when it attacks. It’s a nasty bite where the Pit Bull secretes a chemical that makes their bite nasty.

Sorry. No locking jaws, or different chemicals or bacteria in a Pit’s mouth. Just a dog. One of the worst abused.

People are the reason dogs kill people usually. If a child wanders unattended into a dog’s yard and is attacked, it’s the dog’s fault.
If a child wanders unattended into a yard and falls down a well, it’s the parents fault.

It’s ALWAYS the parents fault. Always.

Most tests have proven that the majority of people can’t even properly identify a Pitt from other similar looking dogs. Many ‘Pitt bull attacks’ aren’t even pit bulls.

Having seen first hand the effects of hundreds of dog bites the worst was definitely a pit bull bites on small child. It had gone for the neck and flung her about. The end result is it decapitated her. When someone sees something like that happen to their child they tend to get evangelical about it not happening to someone else’s.

Similar to the reason people worry about guns. People try to say it’s the owner’s fault, but there is more danger when a gun is there and same with pitbulls. It doesn’t mean there is a high chance a pitbulls will hurt someone it only means that if there is a dog attack causing serious injury, it’s a high chance it was a pitbull, or one of the other known to be aggressive dogs.

The debate really boils down to the old nature vs nurture argument: How much of how dogs behave is programmed into their DNA, and how much is determined by environment?

We’re still trying to understand these same factors as they relate to humans, and with humans we have the advantage of being able to communicate verbally and perform in-depth psychological testing to figure this out. Relying on intuitive, “common sense” reasoning leads to the kind of conclusions that reigned for many centuries about how different races of humans have certain characters. We now look on those conclusions as deeply misguided, and when we still see them today we wince at their naivete.

The appeal of that kind of thinking is that it vastly simplifies the process of judgment; just by looking at someone, you can feel that you already know a lot about what they’re like. But, of course, the danger also is that it is a vast simplification, and so it is inherently unreliable. This is why, thankfully, we’ve mostly decided that racial profiling is not only inaccurate, but actively harmful, because it creates social dynamics that actually do affect behaviors along racial lines.

At the same time, we have no hesitation about applying the same kind of reasoning to dogs. There may actually have been some justification for that back in the days when dogs were selectively bred for particular behaviors (because there is a certain genetic component to behavior), and then those behaviors were reinforced by training and practice. This was a time when what a dog did was more important than how a dog looked.

But for many, many generations now, breeding has been about looks. This is because of the huge influence of breed conformity organizations and their dog show competitions. And it’s important to note that the part of a dog’s genome that determines its looks is miniscule and is unrelated to the part that determines (to whatever extent) how it behaves. So even if, a long time ago, a particular kind of dog could have been assumed to possess a certain character that enabled it to do a particular job, there’s absolutely no grounds for assuming that a modern dog who happens to look kind of like those ancestral dogs has those same behavioral genes.

That’s especially true of pit bulls because they’re barely a “breed” at all, having been recognized in any formal way by the breeding establishment only very recently; so there’s hardly any ancestry trail on these dogs at all. This means that the only thing that makes most dogs pit bulls in people’s eyes is that they look vaguely like what they think pit bulls look like. That’s why most jurisdictions that have outlawed pit bulls end up having to set absurd criteria for which dogs are covered by the bans. Basically, any dog that has a large head and stocky frame can be called a “pit bull” by the authorities. As if that tells you anything about behavior.

People assume that pit bulls are inherently aggressive because there has been a small subculture that raised these dogs to fight in dogfights. So intuitively it seems reasonable to expect them to be wired for aggression. But first, pits were never selected to be aggressive toward humans; and second, even among those few dogs actually bred for fighting, only a small percentage have ever been deemed to have the character for it. Most just aren’t fighters, and get rejected. So you can imagine how low that percentage must be among the vast majority of pits that have been breed as companions, not fighters.

@JLeslie ”... if there is a dog attack causing serious injury, it’s a high chance it was a pitbull”

That’s certainly the popular perception, but in the jurisdictions that have banned pit bulls, the incidence of serious dog-related injuries has not gone down as a result. Wouldn’t that be the case if pit bulls were actually causing most of those injuries?

@thorninmud Do you have a link to that statistic? And, does it account for those owners switching from pitbulls to dobermans and German shepherds? Bringing a different type of known aggressive dog into the community would make the statistic invalid.

All the statistics I’ve seen have a top 5 or top 10, depending on the list, of dogs that commit serious injury, and pitbulls are always on there.

I’ve met very calm, docile, pit bulls, but when they are scary it’s really scary.

If you really think it’s the owners then let’s crack down on the owners. I’m fine with that.

@JLeslie This is from a journal of the American Bar Association.

This is from the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Any big dog is scary when it’s riled. The fact that we’re already primed to believe that pits are especially dangerous “natural-born killers” absolutely affects how scary we find them.

I’m not a Pit Bull fan. I have known some nice Pits, but, every one of them also had major other dog aggression. Of course, any dog can bite, but I do think that many Pits are extra high risk for unprovoked attacks on other pets and children. My friends have a Pit/Sharpei mix, she looks full Pit, maybe a little more wrinklely around the face and she is a very sweet, docile and loving dog towards people, so far anyway, but…once someone came over with their little Pug mix dog and she went nuts, flat out attacked the little dog and it was lucky there was no serious injury or death.

Pits are in the top percentage of high risk breed attacks, this cannot be denied over the last 20 years or so. Many Pits are other dog and cat aggressive and I also know someone whose Pit killed their cat one day, out of the blue, when they were away from home and they came home to a horrible scene. The dog had lived with the cat for several years and then, it just snapped, clearly. Many, many, Pits are responsible for unprovoked attacks on other dogs while their people are out walking them.

Lots of stories abound in this realm aside from human attacks.
I am in the nature camp when it comes to dogs. Most dogs do act more upon their natures and what they have been bred to do Sure nurture does a play a part, but only a part IMO. Pits were a fighting breed, bred to bait bulls just like Border Collies are a herding breed and hundreds and hundreds of years of breeding has gone into their DNA.

While they can be great dogs, personally, I think they are high risk. With so many breeds to choose from I wouldn’t choose a Pit as a family dog, nope, uh uh.
I also do not find them attractive either. I like short coated dogs but I do not like the look of Pits in general.

I find the shape of their heads and extra large mouths to be unattractive and prefer a more streamlined muzzle in dogs. They are not an attractive breed to me in looks or potential temperament issues.

I wonder why anyone would even own a dog with such a horrible reputation.

People get fucking stupid when it comes to dogs.

Dog reputations are famously fickle. Pits used to be used as America’s mascot dog decades ago. There was a time when Spitz dogs were thought so dangerous that there was a bounty out on them and people were clubbing them in the streets. German Shepherds (then known as German Police dogs) were horribly vilified until Rin Tin Tin rehabilitated their image. Dachshunds were considered to have all kinds of nasty character problems (this was during WWI) Dobermans and Rottweilers were also hated because of their Nazi connections. People were terrified of St Bernards until they got recast as hero dogs.

All of the things that are being said about the character of Pits these days have been said about other breeds for ages, until we figured out that they were just dogs.

Here’s a good article on fatal dog attacks and the breeds behind them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States/Revision2

Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are the top 2 breeds for fatal attacks. No denying these top two are the top dogs for fatal attacks.

@Coloma That list is a compilation of newspaper stories. There are plenty of problems with that.

Well, Here is another source @thorninmud.

@Dutchess_III “Compiled by the editor of ANIMALS 24–7 from press accounts since 1982”

Well, what is wrong with using news articles as a resource?

See “plenty of problems” above.

I think people can tell the difference between pit bull and a German Shepherd.

Point missed.

No, I get your point. Your point is people are liable to label a dog as a pit when it isn’t really a pit.

@JLeslie. With all due respect, you have NO CLUE what you’re talking about in regards to most dog attacks being by pits. Shame on you.

Okay, here is a stat I found, I couldn’t link the page.
It was U.S. Dog bite fatalities 2015.
Pit Bulls ( 28 ) and Rottweilers ( 3 ) accounted for 91% of the deaths from dog attack.
In the 11 yr. period between 2005 and 2015 Canines killed 360 americans.

This same combination accounted for 76% of all fatal dog attacks between 2005–2015.
Pit Bulls contributed to 64% of attacks ( 232 deaths ) Pit Bulls and Rottweilers were responsible for 76% of the total recorded deaths. Soooo, clearly, Pits & Rotts are THE 2 most dangerous breeds of dogs in terms of actual fatalities from attacks.

What about surgical solutions?
Like defanging, or severing some of the facial muscles to reduce bite power?

@Dutchess_III yes. The risk isn’t that a German Shepherd will be mistaken for a Pit. To quote:
“Any short-haired stocky dog is likely to be called a pit bull. This should be considered when reading research articles that make claims about “pit bulls” wherein the source of breed identification is either unknown or retrieved from visual breed identification or media reports. Despite this early awareness of potentially unreliable data, decades of research still relied upon and made claims based on media-sourced visual breed identifications. The conclusions cannot be validated and should not be perpetuated. Moreover, the most comprehensive research suggests that dog demographics are not relevant to DBRFs (dog bite related fatalities).”

This is not an article by some Pit bull advocacy group either, but an organization of academics and researchers in dog behavior.

Also…

41% of victims were children age 9 and under.
59% were adults age 22 and over. The total of adults killed age 60 and over was 65%.
Male victims were greater in number than female victims.

( 20 males and 14 females killed ) and the same is true for children with 79% of victims 9 and younger being male ( 11 victims ) compared to 21% ( 3 ) female victims.
Non- family dogs were the highest for fatal attacks, most victims were either visiting or staying with the dogs owners temporarily and children accounted for 82% of victims.
50% of all fatal attacks involved more than one dog, 15% involved a pack attack of 4 or more dogs, 21% involved breeding on behalf of the dogs owners and 6% involved tethered dogs.

Over ⅔rds of all deaths ( 71% ) occurred on the owners property.
9% of fatal attacks involved dogs re-homed by shelters or rescues.

Man, am I learning a lot

German Shepherds aren’t stocky.

Thank you all, Very interesting.
@ragingloli Good suggestion but probably for the rich I guess.

So eveyrone else, what do you think, just muzzle any kind except the (tinier ones) of dogs unless they are in dog parks or at home and close to the children?
I don’t see chiwawas or smaller size dogs mauling anyone to death or close to death though.

@flo Any dog can bite and even a little dog can do some damage, especially if it’s someones face, but yes, small dogs don’t really have the ability to kill an older child or adult but small dogs have killed infants absolutely. I don’t agree with @ragingloli‘s suggestion. De-fanging or severing facial muscles like de-barking dogs and de-clawing cats is mutilation and inhumane. The issue needs to be tackled at the core, make backyard breeding illegal, put a limit of how many dogs one can keep and dog owners need to be super vigilant about their dogs, especially if they are large breeds that are known to be prone to aggressive traits.

Dogs should always be kept away from infants and strange children, not allowed off leash in public areas, and owners need to adapt a serious attitude that their dogs, any dog, but especially larger breeds are, essentially, a lethal weapon and should be treated as such.
People that say ” Oooh, he would NEVER bite” drive me insane. All dogs can and will bite under certain circumstances and some breeds more so than others.

@Dutchess_III Quite right, but not the point.

@Coloma Okay but what about the muzzle?

@flo If you have any doubt about your dogs potential aggression towards other people or animals, yes, they should either be muzzled when away from the home or not taken in public. Also, I have been reading some cases of children killed by Pit Bulls and in many of them the dogs were chained. Chaining dogs should be made 100% illegal. It results in a very frustrated animal and ramps up aggressive tendencies IMO. Chaining can also create fearful defensive behaviors as well since the animal knows it is confined and cannot get away.

@Coloma I meant should they law not require them to be muzzled while in public…

So here’s another issue with statistics like the ones being cited: Even if you were to find reliable stats on how many fatal dog attacks involved which breeds (and again, these do not exist), those numbers would have to be weighted against the relative populations of each breed in order for them to tell you anything about a breed’s inherent danger.

For instance, in my neighborhood I’m more likely to be run over by a Chevy than by a Porsche. That doesn’t mean that Chevys or their drivers are inherently more dangerous than Porsches. I have to look out for all cars equally.

I live in an urban/suburban area. The animal control shelter here is almost entirely populated by short-haired, stocky dogs, the kind most people would call Pit bulls. These are what’s out there getting scooped up by the dogs catchers. No German Shepherds, no Labs. If I’m going to meet a lose dog in my area, it’s way more likely to look like my dog than like a GSD. I would expect that there’s a similar imbalance in the populations in the houses and yards as well. All of that would naturally lead to a greater chance of getting attacked by a short-haired, stocky dog than by a GSD.

I lost a lot of respect for a lot of flutherites on this thread. Very disappointing. I thought most here were thoughtful and educated on the subject of question.

Just to let you all know, to me, the fear mongering Pitt bull rhetoric is equal to the things I hear coming out of Trump’s mouth. No substance, no connection with reality. It’s a bunch of speculation and subjective circumstances and misidentification of breed and of course IGNORANCE.

I’m out of this thread. Their just dogs. Some breeds are more a victim of circumstances than others.Their behavior isn’t congenital, the people who fight them torture them to make them violent. Pathetic. I thought people here would be more empathetic than this. And the claims of the breed being violent by nature are simply wrong.

They are animals like us. That’s it. Their behavior is dictated by their environment, and their relationships with the other animals in their environment. Period…...

Deuces…...

@MrGrimm888 I am thoughtful and very animal savvy, and I think most others here are too but you can’t argue with the facts. Pits and Rotts are among the most dangerous breeds. Yes, they are just dogs but they are in the top few of most likely to actually KILL their victims
. Most dogs just bite, these breeds often don’t stop until their target is dead.

There’s a big difference between a bite and being mauled to the death. Dogs are not “violent”, but they do come in varying degrees of aggression. Guard and fighting breeds are, naturally, going to be more aggressive, most of the time, than other breeds like retrievers, spaniels, etc. There are exceptions of course, but not the rule.

Breeding has everything to do with a dogs temperament and depending on what they were bred for, does make a huge difference in potential problems. Nature takes precedence with animal breeding and while nurture does factor in, nature trumps nurture. Sure, there are plenty of good natured Pits that would never harm a fly, but, there is also a huge number of ticking time bombs just waiting to go off. With so many other breeds known to be good natured family dogs I wouldn’t get a Pit.

@thorninmud Or maybe it’s because there simply ARE a glut of Bully breeds out there and the shelters are loaded with them due to their enormous popularity over the last few decades.
If you look at almost any animal shelter dogs for adoption a huge proportion are Pits and Pit mixes. Like this a shelter not far from me. Notice, every dog in the picture is Pit or Pit mix.

https://saccountydogs.com/adoption/

If you click on “Dog of the week” it’s a Pit.
If you scan “adoptable dogs” 49 are Pit Bulls ( I counted ) with ONE Great Dane. Pits now represent the lions share of dogs in shelters.

@Coloma Yeah, that’s what I mean. Pit mixes often belong to people who can’t afford to spay or neuter their dogs, pay vet bills, socialize them, train them… So they proliferate and get abandonned.

@thorninmud Yeah, and don’t get me wrong, I care for everything, but I think there has been a lot of mis-handling of this breed and because they have, sadly, become the breed to have, especially for some of the less educated, rif raffy types, their numbers and hence, a rise in bad behaviors have sky rocketed.

Pit bulls were bred to combine strength with aggression and they are ideal fighting dogs for blood sports. There are many breeds of dog to choose from so I don’t really understand their popularity today. They are probably the most common breed around here and it is a breed that is associated with the most irresponsible owners, those who neglect their dogs, don’t walk them sufficiently and don’t keep them under proper control. Dog attacks keep happening and although no one has been bitten in recent years in my neighbourhood when it does happen it will likely be by a pit and due to the powerful nature of the dog the consequences will be that much more serious.

@MrGrimm888 I said serious injury. I didn’t say they account for most dog bites. I have no idea if they do, and I don’t assume they do. I talked about top ten and top 5 dogs to commit serious injury, I’m not saying only pitbulls bite leading to serious injury or death. I also said its statistically very unlikely a pitbull will harm someone seriously, but if someone is harmed seriously there is a high chance it was a pit, or one of the other “dangerous” breeds.

The two people I know personally, indirectly, who were either caused serious, permanent, injury or killed by a dog were attacked by a German Shephard and a Doberman. Both known to be dangerous dogs. I know more than one other person who has been bitten by a dog, but it was not a mauling. It’s anything from a nip to a single bite and the person was able to pull away. I know personal accounts don’t make for a valid statistic, but there see statistics cited on this thread, and I don’t get why people want to ignore them.

I feel badly that human beings have bred pitbulls purposely to be aggressive, strong, and in large numbers now. I certainly don’t want to euthanize them all, or anything like that. But, we caused an overpopulation, in terms of supply and demand of pet owners, and I think it’s just awful. I always found breeding pets to be a little odd. We interfere with nature in growing specific animal populations and decreasing them all the time.

Oh no… these terrifying pit bulls!… HAAAALP!

He’s… letting the cat play with his tail! and knocking over the laundry! and… CUDDLING!

My daughter has a pit mix. He’s a nice enough dog. However I went to visit her at her new place for the first time. I stepped in the back yard and this dog came toward me, slung low and flattened out. He almost looked like a black snake. It was not a friendly approach.
“Oh, he doesn’t like strangers,” she said.
Then the dog got to me, sniffed me and his tail started wagging. He’s friendly enough.
I think she’s crazy to have him.

It’s the dog’s job to be wary of strangers. Once he knew your daughter was OK with you, he was OK with you. That’s a good dog.

Russell is dumb as a hammer. He loves everyone. Except the landlord that got him run over. He hates that dude now.

I used to buy into the “Pit bulls were bred to be aggressive” school of thought. It makes for a nice, intuitively satisfying explanation that fits well with popular portrayals of Pit bulls. When a story feels that intuitively right, people are very resistant to letting go of it. I eventually did let go of it after a lot of research into the matter. Anyone who thinks science should trump intuition needs to look closely at this, because the popular way of thinking about the matter is actually feeding into the problem.

There’s certainly something to the assertion that Pits were originally bred to be aggressive. They were selectively bred to fight other animals (a necessary aspect of this, by the way, is that they were bred to bond to humans and not to attack them; aggression is not a one-size-fits-all characteristic). You can certainly breed for aggression, as you can breed for docility. That’s all true.

But here things get complicated, because genetics is complicated. If your aim is to breed for aggression, then you really can’t care much about appearance. Out of the dog’s entire genome, only about 7 locations determine 80% of the dog’s appearance. The vast remainder, mostly uncharted, influences internal functions and behavioral factors. Appearance does not go along with behavioral genetics. Breeding for a particular trait is relatively straight-forward, but the more traits you try to control for, things get really complicated, really fast.

To create a dog breed with multiple consistent traits (e.g. a Golden Retriever) requires a highly disciplined exclusion of any DNA foreign to the lineage. In other words, you inbreed the hell out of them (which is why about 60% of Goldens eventually get cancer, because somehow that unfortunate trait got in there too). As soon as foreign DNA sneaks in, all bets are off on what the results will be. The genetic deck gets reshuffled.

Back when dogs were bred to do particular jobs, people cared less about their appearance. That made breeding a lot easier, They would just breed for the traits needed for the job, and let the other ones ride. If you were very disciplined about this, you could end up with a dog that was really good at a particular job, even if its appearance was widely variable.

But this is not even close to what has happened with Pits. Even supposing that at some point many generations ago Pits were the bred into the ultimate fighting machine, none of the necessary discipline has been imposed to keep that going over the successive generations. That’s why there has been a long-standing reluctance among breed registries to even recognize that there is such a breed. The deck has been reshuffled over and over again, and that’s a strict no-no in breeding.

So what’s considered a Pit bull nowadays is a particular look, not a particular character. It’s a pretty badass look alright, which is part of its appeal in some circles. But in breeding for appearance—those 7 snippets of the genome—all the rest of the genome has been allowed to slide. That’s the compromise. And most owners are just fine with that; the appearance is badass, but not many people want to live with a dog whose behavior is badass.

Dogfighting is still around on a small scale, and yes, those guys would like dogs with badass behavior. But these assholes aren’t geniuses, and it’s a whole lot easier to teach a dog to be mean than to breed it to be mean, so they just take a bunch of dogs, abuse them, and see which ones get mean enough to fight. The rest, they kill. That’s the easy way.

Why does it matter that people cling to the “Pit bulls are bred for aggression” meme in spite of the science? Because it perpetuates a vicious cycle. People are so afraid that they’re inherently dangerous that owners with other choices would never consider adopting one (as many here have expressed). This leads to scenes like this as shelters euthanize over 1 million pits a year because few people will take them.

And also, it’s no secret that dogs respond to how people to view them. No creature is as attuned to the subtleties of human body language as a dog. If you perceive them as a threat, the dog knows this, and this can shape its interaction with you. They also respond to what they think their owner wants from them. This is the “nurture” side of the behavior equation.

Frankly, the best possible way to deal with the “Pit bull problem” would be for all of the white suburban families looking for a dog to go to the shelter, adopt a Pit, give it the training and care it deserves, and proudly walk it around just like any other family dog.

@Seek My Dakota is wary of strangers. She’d take one down in a heartbeat. Not only is it in her nature, but she was actually trained, intensively, to be an attack / guard dog before we got her. I’ve seen her in action twice. Both times against other dogs who were an actual, proven threat to her family. It was scarier than shit!

However, she does not approach strangers threateningly. She approaches them with friendly, but alert, curiosity.

I used to have a lab that was the same way. However, there was one guy who came in the mower shop that she always growled at. He was the only one, though. No idea why. I watched that guy carefully when he came in.

@thorninmud I’ve been thinking about your “stranger identification” thoughts regarding newspaper articles. Why would you not assume that the owners of the dogs are the ones who identify them?

Personal anecdote time (equally as valid as the cited press reports, which themselves mostly rely on personal anecdotes) – out of all the dogs I’ve interacted with, including more than a few “pit bull” types, by far the most aggressive have been the small breeds. The most docile and friendly have been pit/pit-mix types. I’ve been bitten a few times in my life, but only once was it from a dog larger than 10 lbs – my Siberian Husky (a breed not particularly noted for their aggression. (And in that case it was my own stupid ass fault for ignoring his body language and pestering him when he wasn’t in a playful mood).

So…. in answer to the original question – see above.

@Dutchess_III Even if some of the identifications are from owners (and I assume some are), that’s unlikely to be much more accurate. If you really want to know why, read this .

So the point is, stocky, short haired brown dogs are the most dangerous breed @thorninmud?

@Darth_Algar No doubt. None at all. But those shitty, yappy little dogs can’t kill you or rip you arms off.

“stocky short haired brown” isn’t a breed.

@Dutchess_III Definitely not the point.

@Seek Above @thorninmud said that people will identify any stocky, short haired, brown dog as a pit. That’s what I was referring to.

@Darth_Algar – Yep, and my sister nearly had her hand ripped off by a Chow that knew her. It was her best friend’s dog.

@Dutchess_III “No doubt. None at all. But those shitty, yappy little dogs can’t kill you or rip you arms off.”

The point————————

Your head————————

@Dutchess_III It’s not what I said; it was from an analysis by the National Canine Research Council: “Any short-haired stocky dog is likely to be called a pit bull”.

Also from that analysis: “the most comprehensive research suggests that dog demographics are not relevant to dog bite related fatalities”. Translation: If you look at actual research (as opposed to newspaper clippings) there’s no relevant connection between breed and fatal dog bites.

OK, so short-haired, stocky dogs are the most dangerous kinds of dogs? Apparently the ones with that body type are responsible for most of the dog bites, no matter what their breed.

I feel like I’ve done all I can do on this thread, so if anyone else would like to take up the challenge, you have my best wishes. Hug the dog of your choice. Peace out.

Well. That seems the logical conclusion, doesn’t it? Short haired, stocky dogs of indeterminate origins are responsible for 59% of dog attacks.

So, don’t get a short haired, stocky dog.

@Dutchess_III – the point is, it doesn’t matter what the dog looks like, it’s still equally likely any individual dog will attack.

It’s just that short haired brown dogs are right about 59% of all dogs, thus they’re responsible for 59% of dog attacks. It doesn’t mean 59% of brown dogs are attackers.

Statistically speaking blacks are convicted of a greater percentage of crimes than whites are. I guess that means that black people are inherently more dangerous than whites . Must just be in their nature.

From this

The combination of molosser breeds, including pit bulls, rottweilers, presa canarios, cane corsos, mastiffs, dogo argentinos, fila brasieros, sharpeis, boxers, and their mixes, inflict:

86% of attacks that induce bodily harm
81% of attacks to children
89% of attack to adults
76% of attacks that result in fatalities
86% that result in maiming
Embody 9.2%+ of the total dog population Not 59%.

Again, compiled from press reports.

And, the study itself is obviously biased.

Anyone that even, remotel,y knows their dog breeds can identify a Pit or Pit X easily. I have an uncanny ability to identify most mixed breed dogs quite accurately I just identified a Queensland mix the other day at a local lake. Certain breed traits are easily identifiable a lot of the time. I think even most lay people can identify a Pit Bull pretty easily 90% of the time.

I live with 2 Border Collies and a Siberian Husky on this property and you can no more remove the Border Collies natural instinct to herd than you can remove a fighting breeds, innate trait to be a tenacious type of dog. Most of the Pits and Pit crosses out there have come from suspect breeding backgrounds and you simply do not what you’re getting when you adopt one of these dogs. It may be the greatest family pet in the world or it may, turn on you or a child years down the road. Most fatal, owner related attacks have occurred exactly under these circumstances.

The dog had never shown any aggression and then, one day, out of the blue, years later, it goes nuts and attacks. This is the same scenario over and over again, the family dog of 8 years viciously kills a child and everyone says Kissy Face had never shown any aggression. Being a horse person I can assure you that breeding for particular traits and temperament is everything. Horse breeds are defined as ” hot & cold” bloods, with “Warmbloods” being a mix between a hot blood, like a Thoroughbred or Arabian and a cold blood breed like a draft. Most Warmbloods combine the athleticism of the hot blooded breed and the more even tempered personality of the draft influence, but not always, just like a more aggressive breed of dog may or may not inherit the more laid back personality of the non-Pit parent parent.

Just like humans when crossing breeds you have no idea which parent breed is going to “throw” a particular trait. Some kids take after mom in in personality/temperament and some dad, and some, a mix of both. I am in no way saying that ALL fighting breeds of dogs will go wrong but, it is a risk and the list of breeds @Dutchess_III posted simply, ARE, known to be the most aggressive and most at risk for serious maulings and killings.
Just like horses, any horse can kick, throw you, bite you, kill you, but…if I am going to purchase a steady family horse it is not going to be a hot blooded animal that may be way too much horse to handle for a child or novice.

I think the same holds true for ALL dog breeds bred to be fighters & guard dogs. I’m not going to buy a fiery Thoroughbred that was bred and born to run and toss my child up on their back, I am going to find a mellow, plodding, older, cold blood breed like a Quarter horse for the best possible family animal. You wouldn’t buy your 16 yr. old with limited driving experience a high performance car like a Ferrari, and to be on the safe side, it is probably best to not choose a fighting/guard breed of dog as a family pet, most of the time.

Funny. The Humane Society thinks my dog is a lab/basset hound mix. My vet thinks he’s a beagle mix.

I was told he’s a dachshund/pit bull terrier mix, by someone who has no formal knowledge of dog breeds.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s not quite so easy to assume you’re right about breeding.

I thought dachshund when I saw the picture you posted @Seek.

Yes, from press reports. People are reporting that the dog that attacked was a stocky, short haired dog.

Press reports written by reporters looking for “exciting” articles, based on reports by people who are biased against a specific breed-type, compiled by someone seeking specifically to demonize the breed for their biased “study”.

This is the equivalent of showing a picture of the horizon to prove the earth is flat.

Or as reported by the owners of the dogs. You yourself characterize you dog as a pit. If he bit someone badly enough to make the news that’s what you would tell the police or the journalists or whatever. They also get their description from Animal Control officers.

If a pair of German Shepherds chased a couple of kids up a tree, then killed one when he climbed down to run to the school bus, that would be just as exciting. I don’t think all editors and journalists are out to demonize the dog. They are just reporting what happened, and a description of the dog is part of that.

@Seek Well, without DNA testing you can never be 100% sure, but, an experienced person does have the advantage most of the time. The stats I read all came from animal control related intervention and I feel the identification process by professionals and the obvious physical characteristics speak for themselves. I disagree that reports that are press related are bias. Most articles show actual pictures of the dogs in question and most of them are Bully breed types.

Hey, I’m not hating on the bully breeds just going with the facts. Given the glut of breeding these dogs in the last 30 years by often, ignorant assholes that are breeding for aggression along with the bad ass bully look, that has resulted in a mega saturation of the breed, well…it is just a sad situation but I think it is indisputable that the Bully breeds are responsible for the lions share of serious maulings and deaths.

What I characterize Russell as is based entirely on who I’m talking to at the time. With my landlord it’s “lab/basset hound”. With my vet it was “I dunno, you tell me”.

When he was hit by a car and I had to tell the judge what breed he was, I said, “He’s a rescue. The humane society says X, my vet says Y, I’m not an expert.”

You indicated he was a pitbull, here. That’s what I’m going on. I can see what your referring to, though I see a dachshund more than anything.

Yes, and that’s specifically because people look at anything that is brown and has short hair as a pit bull. He might be part pit bull. He might not. I really don’t know. I’ve never met his parents. He was a stray puppy.

And because it doesn’t fucking matter. He’s a dog. A stupid, lovable, trusting dog, who’s currently sleeping on the couch with his kitten. If he’s ever accused of biting someone, I will guarandamntee you it’s the person’s fault, no matter what his actual breed is.

People know a stocky, powerful looking dog when they see one. They may say “It looked like a pit,” as a short cut.

I personally, would not describe your dog as a pit. He doesn’t have the muscle mass of a pit.

My friends with the Pit/Sharpei mix identify her as a Lab/Sharpei to almost everyone. She is blonde like a yellow lab, but, her Pitty look is unmistakable to anyone that knows dogs. Many Pit X’s are, dishonestly represented because, yes, there is a bias against this breed, but not entirely without reason. These same friends with the Pit/Sharpei X have another friend with a little red, full bred pit. She is friendly enough with people, rather wary, but she will kill any cat she sees.

Not a good thing. I think anyone that has a dog that has shown aggression, especially more than once, towards people or other animals, taking into consideration mitigating circumstance, should be euthanized. Harsh? Maybe, but better safe than sorry.

I had to do this years ago when a dog we had was involved in 2, unprovoked bites. He bit my brother-in-law and then ME of all people!
The one who lovingly raised him, took him to obedience classes, and gave him a great life.
I wasn’t willing to give this dog a 3rd opportunity to potentially bite someone.

He had mental issues that were no fault of the nurturing he was given and there was no indication that the parent dogs had aggression issues.
My daughter was 5 at the time and starting to invite her little friends over, nope, sorry, not going to take the chance with a known biter.

@Seek I’m sure that’s true for Russel and I did read one account where, how-fucking-stupid-can-you-get? the Pit that killed a child, the account was he had been “riding” the dog like a horse! Seriously, in cases where the person/child was harassing the dog, the bite/attack is justifiable but in cases where there was no provocation at all, well…those types of dogs, of any breed need to be destroyed IMO. Once bitten twice shy could mean once bitten dead as a doorknob in a lot of cases.

When the kids were little we had a black shepherd of some kind that was given to us by a co worker. He was a full grown, really pretty dog. I was wary of him, though, becasue I could sense an unfriendliness about him. For example, I tried to spray flea spray on him he would growl.
One day, about 2 months after we got him, when I was very pregnant, he was on the couch. I told him to get off of the couch. I went to pull his collar and he growled and snapped. I snapped! I dragged his ass off of the couch through the kitchen and shoved him out the door. My aggression was greater than his own which is the only reason we didn’t get into an all out dog fight, I guess. When I threw him out the door, he snapped at me again. I called animal control and the last I saw of him he was being taken away by a slight, petite woman dog catcher.

Nope. Not happening. Dutchess growls at stuff, mostly the cat, and she goes beserkers when dogs go by the house, and she ends up with 30 minutes time out in the back yard. But she’s never snapped or bit. I told Rick that if she ever does, she’s gone.

@Darth_Algar Your example of blacks being convicted of more crimes than whites doesn’t fly.
In the case of most humans, short of true sociopathology, it is about nurture and environment that ramps up the criminal element. Apples and oranges compared to the hardwired DNA of hundreds of years of selective breeding of an animal to exhibit particular traits.

@Dutchess_III “Or as reported by the owners of the dogs.”

Who can be seriously ignorant of what breed the dog actually is. Most people think they can tell what a dog is by looks alone. I think we’ve established just how faulty that can be.

@Coloma

And I see my point with that post flew over your head as well.

@Darth_Algar people know a squat muscular dog when they see one. They may say, “It looked like a pit,” just for brevity. The point is, it would appear that squat, muscular dogs, of whatever breed, are the ones most responsible for dog attacks.

@Darth_Algar I took your comment at at face value, if there is some mysterious hidden meaning, do tell and I disagree that in the case of many types of dogs it is very easy to identify strong breed traits. Even someone with no experience with horses is going to recognize a Clydesdale, even if their only experience with a Clydesdale is the Budweiser wagon. Same holds true for Pit Bulls these days. With the popularity of Pit Bulls in the last several decades, very few people are going to mis-identify the unmistakable traits of the breed.

“Pit bulls are responsible for all dog attacks”
“Pit bulls are responsible for most dog attacks”
“Pit bull-type dogs are responsible for most dog attacks”
“Dogs that could be mistaken for pit bulls if you squint hard in the dark are responsible for most dog attacks”

Here’s a good example of a strong identifying trait. The Brindle coloring in dogs only shows up in a handful of breeds. Boxers, Mastiffs, Pits, and a couple other bully breeds, Akitas, Plott Hounds, Catahoula dogs and the occasional Boston terrier and Corgi. All brindle colored dogs would have one or more of these breeds in their background. Coloring, coat density, ears, tail, facial structure are all good markers of breed indication. Even a dog that is a 350th generation mutt will display one or more traits indicative of it’s dominant lineage.

Anyone that knows dog breeds fairly well can easily identify at least some breed traits in a dog. I can identify many horse breeds and crosses by color and build. Like anything, it depends on ones knowledge of the subject at hand. We have a stout Buckskin Mustang/ Belgian draft X horse here. He has the buckskin coloring of a mustang a few other breeds carry the Buckskin gene as well, but only a couple and Belgians are always Palomino to reddish chestnut with white/cream, manes & tails, and the body of the draft. Because I know my horse breeds I was able to nail his breeding pretty easily by coloring & bone structure.

We had a couple of dogs attack. They weren’t pits. They were some sort of hound dog. Dakota kicked their asses.

@Seek I don’t understand why this is such a point of contention when there are scads of statistics on the breeds most likely to bite/attack. Yes, Pits and other bully breeds like mastiffs along with Rotts and Shepherds are high risk breeds. This isn’t about hating on the bully breeds, it is about statistics and since there is such a glut of these dogs out there, coupled with their original breed design and shitty people breeding and exploiting them for the wrong reasons, the bite stats have sky rocketed. It really is that simple.

How many pit bulls are in this picture?

Bonus question: Which one of these dogs is now dead because it bit my infant?

Those your dogs @Seek?

They were. Bub (in the back) died right before Ian was born. He was very old. Sam bit Ian when he was seven months old and was summarily dispatched. Winston was rehomed when we lost the house.

@Seek I would say 1 Pit X, possible a Pit or boxer mix in front, and one wiener dog. I’m guessing the Wiener dog is the baby biter. Sure, quite frankly ( pun intended ) I find Wiener dogs to be weird little weenies most of the time, but we are talking about breeds most likely to KILL. A Wiener dog could kill an infant but not an adult and I have never heard of death by Wiener dog in in adult. That said, I was seriously bitten by an evil Wiener dog named ” Pesto” as a kid.

Bub was ¾ pit bull terrier, ¼ rottweiler, and the single greatest dog I’ve ever known.
Winston was a purebred American Staffordshire Terrier (one of the three breeds called “pit bull” in common parlance).
Sam was an asshole.

Bub’s father’s name was Helmet. He lived to the ripe old age of 17. There were eight dogs in Bub’s litter. We knew all of them. Bub’s niece, Nile, lived to 15. None of Helmet’s offspring have ever harmed a person that didn’t ask for it.

Bub did bite a guy in the face once. He was on drugs and broke into the house in the middle of the night. He was a Good Boy.

@Seek and those are all justifiable reasons for a dog to bite. Intruders, being harassed, abused, extreme fear of something or somebody, but sadly, there are all sots of completely unprovoked and deadly attacks by the breeds in question. Right The Staffy/Pit name confusion. I get it. Haha I like the name “Helmet.”

Most little dogs are assholes. That’s why I won’t have one.

Relevent. My son. :D

@Dutchess_III So you’re saying your son is an asshole little dog? lol

My dog that bit me was a Coonhound. His father was a Walker hound ( a strain of Foxhound named after the breeders name ) and are known to be very docile and laid back around people, his mother was a Plott hound, a very tenacious german breed of hound and used to hunt bear, cougar and boar. Now mama dog was sweet when we picked him out but he was a total aggressive asshole. A 96 lb. and about 3.5 feet tall, a monster hound dog is something that can truly strike terror in your heart.

He has a chihuahu / weiner mix. Little dog, giant ears and giant balls! He’s only a little bit of an asshole though, and lord he loves me.
The dog lived with us for a time. His entire mission in life was to make Dakota his woman. She got so annoyed. She couldn’t lay down because he’d be all over her. The closest he got was at the lake when they went swimming.

@Coloma Was he aggressive when you picked him out?

Not that anyone will actually read it, but I just found this (again, from the National Canine Research Council), which is a good general explanation of how breed relates to behavior.

Or, if you all prefer, we could just go by our feelings on the matter.

There was a note in there about a wolf population that was going extinct because so much inbreeding was causing fertility issues. Introducing just one new, non-related member fixed it. (Thinking about the incest thread.)

@ Dutchess III He was bold and pushed all the other pups away from the food but I wouldn’t have called him aggressive. He was very high energy being a hunting hound breed and yes, I should have done my homework. I always wanted a Bloodhound but they were very expensive and hard to find in my area so I saw an ad for “Coonhound” pups. I just figured they were going to be a big, goofy, floppy eared dog.

Wrong! Night and day between a Coonhound and a Bloodhound, bred for two, completely different “jobs.” Bloodhounds are very mellow and laid back and because they are human scent hounds, very low aggression compared to game hunting hound breeds. I am pretty sure it was the Plott hound influence as they are very tenacious, but, I didn’t do all my research on that breed ahead if time. He had loads of training and we exercised him like crazy but he just became more and more aggressive with strangers as the years went on.

He would bolt out the door and chase the neighbor lady when she was jogging and skid to a stop and bay, at the top of his lungs. He “treed” her, so to speak. haha
Not funny in reality, but..when he snapped at my BIL and then bit my hand, we could no longer deny his behavior was getting out of control and sadly, he had to go. because he was known to be aggressive and a biter I didn’t feel I could re-home him in good conscience and I did not want to give him to a hunting home because these dogs are, often, abused. It was a very sad situation, partly my fault for not researching the breeds more but also, partly just bad dog luck as his parents were both good natureed.

@thorninmud That is a very good article and I agree, to a degree, however, I do not think that all breed typing for temperament and traits should be completely “abandoned” as the article states. Most breeds just are, going to exhibit their breed characteristics most of the time, again, there are exceptions, but I have yet to meet a Border Collie that doesn’t want to stalk and herd, EVERYTHING, from other animals to people to the broom and vacuum cleaner. haha
If you read a profile of The American Staffordshire terrier aka, Pit Bill Terrier, Pit Bull, etc. they are described as “athletic, brave, courageous” and a “protector” breed that has strong guarding instincts. It goes on to say they need a ” good deal of training to remain well behaved” and “continual” exercise. In other words, they have very strong bodies and personalities and need a lot of training to be best behaved.

Couple any flaws in handling these dogs well along with their natural, protective temperament it is no wonder that they can and do snap, especially those that are kept chained. Given the powerful nature of their jaws and bodies and their tenacity, they can be a very dangerous breed if they go wrong. So can other breeds yes, but again, the stats are there, with bully breeds, rotts, shepherds at the top of the dog pile for most likely to, actually KILL humans. I don’t know what else to say, it just is what it is. It’s the old, “if it walks like a duck” thing…if it looks like a Pit Bull, Rottweiler, it probably IS, based on breed characteristics.

The American Staffordshire Terrier and the Pit Bull Terrier are not the same breed.

Just like the English Bulldog and the Olde English Bulldogge are not the same breed.

Page 24 (according to the pdf counter) “Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of an animal expressing a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection.”

Page 30. “It remains to be seen whether trainers’ and behaviorists’ reports of clustering of behavior associated with particular breeds will one day be borne out by controlled studies, or whether any of the noted behavioral characteristics could then be tied back to a breed’s original function.

31 ”However, as the genetic work progresses, a complex personality trait, such as level of “sociability,” may well be found to be the result of an interaction of multiple genetic predispositions that occur more frequently among particular breeds than among the species as a whole.”

35 “People have been indisputably been selecting for specific physical and behavioral aptitudes in dogs for much longer than the modern idea of a purebred has existed.”

The article does focus on the fact that you can’t really predict that a certain type of dog is going to act a certain type of way, while at the same time acknowledging that a genetic predisposition of behavior doe exist within breeds.

Dakota is the only pure bred dog I’ve ever owned. I’ve always heard that pure breds can be less healthy, both physically and mentally, than dogs who are closer to pure bred. She manifesting the hip problems that are common to German Shepherds. She’s also very intelligent as are most Shepherds.

All of the breeds you mention, @Seek, come under the umbrella of molosser breeds. They are more closely related to each other, than say, to a German Shepherd or a collie.

That is a huge number of answers. Please answer my question in my last post which is grammatically incorrect. Wouldn’t mandatory muzzling while in public end all this debate?

@flo No, because most attacks occur on the owners property. Leashed dogs that have shown aggressive behavior towards other animals yes, that would be a good idea, but it is still up to owner discretion unless the dog owner has been sited for aggressive behavior then yes, I would have no problem with a muzzle law.
Owners that know their dogs are aggressive should muzzle when in public as well, but…you can’t enforce something like this until a dog actually attacks somebody or another animal, just like you can’t have someone arrested because you think they might commit a crime.

The action has to take place before the penalty.
Requiring all dogs to be muzzled in public would be akin to requiring all citizens to wear handcuffs in public because they might commit a crime.
Honestly, most dog owners, like most parents, don’t believe their little precious could ever do anything wrong. This is why I always cringe when I hear people say their dog would never bite.

@Seek I meant to include the APBT along with the Staffy, not lump both together but @Dutchess_III has it right.

Other articles I have read have also said that most Pits are not other dog and cat friendly, which has been my experience and if you want a dog to take to the dog park they are probably not the breed for you. Even if there is no human related aggression they are not known to be good with a lot of other animals. Again there are always exceptions.

Um, no. If I’m walking my dog in public, I want people to think my dog could bite them.

They don’t know Russell is a loving ball of dumb. As far as they know, he’ll rip your balls off as soon as look at you. In my neighborhood, a dog is as good as an open-carried pistol, and harder to get away from me.

Muzzling my dog in public would defeat that whole purpose, and I’d be limited to trips to the dog park (which is often way beyond my other-human-tolerance capacity).

@Seek
there is an easy solution to this

403 error, but I like the URL. Haha.

@Coloma

The point was, I think, rather obvious if you took a moment to think beyond “face value”. Statistics don’t present a complete picture. Far from it. If you merely go by statistics, especially statistics gathered from the press then you’ll see that a higher percentage of blacks are convicted criminals than whites. You’ll see that a greater percentage of our prison population is black, rather than white. You might very well then conclude that blacks are more violent, more dangerous than whites. You may even conclude that crime and violence is simply inherent to the nature of black people. Indeed, many people have argued precisely that.

Yes, indeed, a bite from a “pit bull” is more likely to result in severe injury, maybe even death, than a bite from a poodle. But that does not mean that you are more likely to be bitten by a “pit bull”. Nor that such dogs are inherently more aggressive.

@Darth_Algar I hear what you’re saying but…the crime stats on black criminals does have more to do with socioeconomic matters and not inherent traits. In the case of dog breeds, inherent traits absolutely do factor in. An animal bred for fighting and hunting is going to have an innate, inbred disposition to be more likely to exhibit aggression. Prey drive factors in with all dogs, and some have much more than others.

Some of these dogs are victims of shitty environments like black criminals, but, the difference is, black people have not been bred, for centuries, to be aggressive. They are victims of nurture not nature like most animals are. I have an 11 yr. old BLM rescue Mustang here. He was taken off the range at around 2 years of age, gelded and adopted out.

He is well trained and responds well to me but he still exhibits his wild side at times and I would not trust him with strangers nor would I consider him a safe family horse, not by a long shot. His nature is based on generations of being a wild born and bred Nevada Mustang and he would not be a suitable mount for a novice person. I am simply saying that I do not think Pit Bulls are the highest choice for a family pet and disagree all you want but the stats do show they are in the top handful of high risk breeds for serious injury and death.

Something that I don’t understand is that the popularity of pits has exploded in the last 10 years precisely because of their violent reputation. There are people, like myself, who wouldn’t dream of picking up a pit, or pit mix, as a family pet for that reason, yet there are people who do pick them up for a family precisely for that reason. Why?

Disregard science folks, we just know!

@Dutchess_III Many dog breeds have become fad breeds. Irish Setters were very popular in the 50’s and 60’s and they are very high strung and not very trustworthy dogs. Dobermans were the fad breed of the 70’s, Pits came on the scene in the 80’s along with Rottweilers.
Look at the Disney movie influences.

The 101 Dalmations film caused an explosion of people wanting to adopt Dalmations. Another breed that was bred as a working dog and they are not great family pets. They are hyper, skittish, need massive amounts of exercise and are not very social dogs.

@Darth_Algar So what’s your point, that article clearly says that Pits are responsible for severe injuries. The other breeds of Shepherds, Chow Chows, Springer Spaniels and Lhasha Apsos & Shih Tsu’s well…yep, nothing new there. I have never cared for Springers, knew several and they were all sketchy in behavior, knew a nasty little Shih Tsu that was a child hater and was bitten by a Doberman myself as a kid. You just proved my point, certain breeds ARE more likely to be biters and attackers.

Pit Bulls and the bully breeds in general fall into that pot of potentially mean mongrels.

@Coloma

Did you actually read that article? Or did you merely skim it in search of any word combination you felt would support your argument without any context? Frankly it sounds like the latter, because had you read it you’d realize it’s actually saying the opposite of what you’re claiming.

Or maybe you wouldn’t. Some folks simply refuse to absorb any information that runs contrary to their preconceived notions.

@Darth_Algar I read the article and clearly, it is biased in the sense that it does not take into account the various, random attacks, outside of impoverished areas known to have a high propensity for keeping neglected dogs of all breeds, especially Pits. There are thousands of cases involving regular, everyday, people that have not mishandled their Pits that have had this breed turn on them or others. There was a case in my area a few years ago, a middle class, retired, white couple in the their 60’s, that had adopted a Pit and after years of good behavior the dog went nuts and attacked the women, nearly killing her.
I am educated/ very experienced with animals of all kinds and I stand firm on breed history as a solid indicator of potential problems.
Any dog can bite but to completely dismiss breed history/traits as unreliable is bullshit.

Exactly, some people refuse to hear the voice of knowledge and experience and cling to their fantasies that “love” can overcome. No, love does not overcome DNA.
If you nurture a Rattlesnake enough do you think you will prevent the little Viper from latching onto your nose when you kiss it goodnight? haha

I can think of a few red flags in your anecdote.

1: Adopted. They don’t know what kind of environment the dog was raised in before they got him. They likely also didn’t know of any prior issues with that dog.
2: Retired older couple – likely weren’t giving him enough exercise. Thought they were adopting an adult dog that would sleep at their feet and maybe take a walk around the block. Terriers need to run. They need to dig. They need stimulation.

It isn’t only drug dealers that are bad dog owners.

From the conclusion of the study:
Given that breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness and pit bull-type dogs are not implicated in controlled studies it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite prevention. If breeds are to be targeted a cluster of large breeds would be implicated including the German shepherd and shepherd crosses and other breeds that vary by location.

And yes, if you’re going to look for which dogs can maul you to death, the ones with the bigger mouths will win, regardless of length of fur or breadth of chest.

@Seek Exactly, adopting a adolescent or adult dog is risky, breed aside, you have no idea what it’s background was.
I think the dog was advertised as “mature” so yes, they probably assumed it would not be as energetic as a younger dog.
I agree, again, any dog can bite and breed alone may not be a sole predictor, but, some breeds are, naturally, more aggressive by nature.
Of course, any large breed can be a killer but….Pits, especially are known to be extremely tenacious and hard to pull off an attack.

There are numerous accounts of people trying everything to get the dog off the victim, hitting them with shovels, sticks, bricks, you name it, and repeatedly the consensus is that nothing they did stopped the attack. This is the issue IMO, that when a Pit type of dog goes off, they are, virtually unstoppable from all accounts. The Wiener dog and Doberman that bit me, and my hound, all were a quick lunge and bite, not a flat out, stranglehold mauling until death. This is what separates the Pits from the Poodles 90% of the time.
The elderly woman that was attacked after several years with the dog had to call 911 from the bathroom, where she escaped, as the dog was still in attack mode outside the door. MOST dogs stop after a flare of aggression, Pits often do not.

And yet, for all that is “known”, they are not proportionally more dangerous than any other large breed dog. Not according to “common knowledge”, not according to anecdotes in the newspaper, according to actual research.

@Seek Actual research attributes a huge percentage of fatalities to Pits. Is it because of the sheer glut of these dogs everywhere? The gross overbreeding and surplus? Is it a numbers game based on saturation of the breed or is it also part of the intrinsic nature of the type? I think it’s both. Over and out.

A simplistic understanding of genetics is a dangerous thing.

Not long ago, neurologists found a genetic basis for psychopathy in humans. Individuals with this genetic profile have a physically different brain, and this difference can be seen in MRIs. A neuroscientist named James Fallows discovered, while looking at a scan of his own brain, that he had this structural variant. Further DNA tests also showed that he had high-risk allels for aggression and violence. He had the DNA of a psychopath, but he was a non-violent, stable, successful scientist.

(from this article) “Why has Fallon been able to temper his behavior, while other people with similar genetics and brain turn violent and end up in prison? Fallon was once a self-proclaimed genetic determinist [i.e. “you can’t overcome DNA”] but his views on the influence of genes on behavior have evolved. He now believes that his childhood helped prevent him from heading down a scarier path.

“I was loved, and that protected me,” he says. Partly as a result of a series of miscarriages that preceded his birth, he was given an especially heavy amount of attention from his parents, and he thinks that played a key role.”

Again, I can’t emphasize enough that there is absolutely no reason to assume that Pit bulls, either as a class or as individuals, have genes predisposing them for aggression. But even if they did, how those genes would be expressed is affected by nurture.

I refrain from doing “positive propaganda” about Pits, extolling their devotion, courage, etc., because that’s falling into a different version of the same fallacy. They’re dogs. Some dogs are wonderful, some aren’t so wonderful. Some are stable, some aren’t.

From your own article, @thorninmud, which I read, and posted excerpts here, the first excerpt is: “Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of an animal expressing a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection.”

As I told a friend, there are some awful people who select pits specifically for their aggression. If they get them as puppies, they select them solely based on the aggressive nature of their parents. Then they go and breed them with another dog who was also selected for their aggressiveness.
Then they pop out litter after litter in their trashy back yards, and all those puppies get released into the general population eventually. Most end up abandoned or abused, some find good homes, but they’ve all been bred in the hope that they will be dangerously aggressive.

To my knowledge, there is no other breed of dog who is deliberately bred, by civilians, with no oversight, specifically for this reason.

That also explains why Pits are the most common dog found in shelters. It’s a very sad situation, but hey. There is a demand for pit bulls.

@Dutchess_III – Sure there was: Dobermans. For a long time.

@Dutchess_III Yes, as I said up here, “There’s certainly something to the assertion that Pits were originally bred to be aggressive. They were selectively bred to fight other animals (a necessary aspect of this, by the way, is that they were bred to bond to humans and not to attack them; aggression is not a one-size-fits-all characteristic). You can certainly breed for aggression, as you can breed for docility. That’s all true.”

Now you can read the rest of that to see why that’s irrelevant.

And the shelters aren’t full of Pits because they’re in demand. They’re full of pits because people are too scared of their reputations to adopt them. My dog was in a shelter for 4 months before I adopted him; the only reason they hadn’t euthanized him was that he was good-looking enough that they couldn’t believe someone wouldn’t eventually take him.

@thorninmud I read about that scientist too a few years ago, and while I think nature, does, certainly, impact behavior in many instances the difference between human psychopathy and animal breeding is an apples and oranges thing. In humans nobody is breeding to strengthen the psychopathic traits and, like everything, there are varying degrees from mild to full blown sadistic serial killer types. There are plenty of mild to moderately inflicted people out there that may never kill but still exhibit traits that cause problems for them in their relationships and work environments. The issue with many Pit Bulls is that they have been bred, recklessly, by low life backyard breeders for the exact purpose of extreme aggression, capitalizing on the breeds, already, known tenacity from many centuries of breeding for a strong and courageous and tenacious dog.

There is no way to deny any dogs breed characteristics as being highly influential in how they might show up. If you look at a Draft horse you see that animal has been bred for centuries to be as big and strong and powerful as possible, all through selective breeding that hardwired in the desired traits, whether that is strength or coat patterns or temperament. Temperament is absolutely genetically passed on.
It is also a well known dog fact that dogs often see children as subordinate and children are always more high risk for dog attacks because of this fact.

Bottom line, Pits, as a whole simply do exhibit a higher propensity for random, explosive, aggressive behavior than certain other breeds and I for one would not want to take the chance on one if looking for a family pet. Nor would I want to adopt a Pit with a sketchy history from a shelter anymore than I would want to bring a convicted violent offender into my home and hope that I could nurture them out of their violent tendencies. The Pit Bull issue is a sad one, there are plenty of really good dogs in this group but because of the gross negligence of, poor breeding practices and over population there are many, many, highly unstable dogs out there just waiting to go off.

Reckless breeding of anything is going to ramp up the odds of all sorts of genetically related problems from the physical to the mental. I have long joked about ” breed a mean dog to a stupid dog, get mean and stupid dogs. ” Sounds funny but, it is actually the tragic outcome for many dogs for many dogs of all breeds.

“It is also a well known dog fact that dogs often see children as subordinate and children are always more high risk for dog attacks because of this fact”
Again, an issue of bad dog ownership. A child in the house must be taught to be dominant over the dog, and the dog must be taught that it is to submit to the child.

So, if it boils down to it:

Yes, I agree that if you’re a shitty dog owner, who thinks that a dog is perfectly happy to sleep at your feet all day with no play time, no exercise, no training, no stimulation, and will follow all of your commands, and let your asshole grandchildren ride on its back like a horse and chew on its ears, then yes, pit bulls are aggressive and you should not own one.

@thorninmud “And the shelters aren’t full of Pits because they’re in demand. They’re full of pits because people are too scared of their reputations to adopt them.” So you’re saying whole litters of pit puppies are being put into shelters because the breeders can’t adopt them out? That doesn’t explain the glut, unless there are back yard breeders doing as I said, breeding them helter skelter, then taking the ones they can’t sell to the humane society.

@Seek Yes, but…this doesn’t always happen and even then, many dogs still have strong dominant traits that increase the potential for a bite or attack. Why babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone with any dog of any breed without supervision even if you have had the child work with the dog in obedience methods.
Again, I agree that a lot goes into maintaining a dog, of any breed, in a fashion that meets their needs but I am still of the mindset that certain breeds of dogs are better suited as a family pet than others. Like my horse analogy, certain breeds of horses are going to be a better family fit than others, taking training, age and other mitigating factors into consideration.

Many of these attacks I have researched are, simply, random, out of the blue, no provocation, and I don’t think this fact can be ignored. Also, many involve multiple dogs killing their own owners or other family members, so while all breeds can fall into a pack mentality, certain breeds seem to be more prone to the pack mindset as well.
My issue with the potential for problems in this breed is the fact that unlike many other breeds these dogs tend to attack to – the – death. A dog bite is bad enough, ripping a kids face apart is bad enough, regardless of breed, but when you have a breed of dog, that, undeniably, often goes for the head, throat, and face and doesn’t let up until their victim is dead, well….sorry, but Pits, Rotts and others that are known KILLERS are breeds I wouldn’t want to risk keeping when there are so many other breeds with better reputations for solid family dogs.

@Dutchess_III If you’re poor and you want a dog, you’re not going to pay hundreds of dollars for a purebred. You’re not even going to go over to the shelter and pay the $120 adoption fee. You’re going to take one of the puppies from the litter of that guy you know. Then, you’re not going to pay to have your new dog spayed or neutered, so it’s going to have puppies too.

A whole lot of those puppies aren’t going to have takers, and many are going to go to homes that don’t have the resources or the stability to keep them.

That’s why the shelters are full of them.

Yep. Russell came from some chick at Hubby’s bar that couldn’t take care of him anymore. She’d had him for all of a week.

@Coloma I guess I’m just a lot more reluctant than you seem to be to accept a proposition as “known”.
Widely believed, widely reported is one thing. Known is something else. The more research I do on this, the less actual basis I find for “knowing” much at all about what Pits are like.

But the people you describe are specifically looking for pits @thorninmud. Of course they aren’t going to pay hundreds of dollars for a pure bred. They’ll cough up $20 for a dog that the breeder says is a pit and looks like a pit, and probably has a strong pit lineage. The more aggressive the better. And the breeder makes a hunert bucks a litter every few months.
And why do people want a pit or pit mix? Why not a cocker spaniel or a border collie? Why isn’t there a glut of those dogs in the pound?

@Seek, you said, “A child in the house must be taught to be dominant over the dog.” In our house, Dakota is dominant. Over everything and every one, including us. She is just polite enough, and confident enough to allow us to think we’re dominate.
Her dominance is not expressed through aggression. It’s expressed through a supreme self confidence and self assurance. It’s the same way you would know Barack Obama is dominate the instant he walks in to a room, even if you’d never heard of him before. It’s his confidence and attitude and his carriage.

Here lately though, she is reasserting herself. She’s getting old, show knows what the rules are and sometimes decides not to follow them. She is making it known, “You’re not the boss of me.”
For example, when people come to visit the dogs get excited. We’ve always hollered, “Go outside!” to the dogs before we let people come in. They immediately ran to the back door where we let them in the yard and shut the door.
Dutchess still runs outside with no hesitation, but Dakota has decided she’s not going to do that any more.
The thing is, Dakota knows why we want her to go outside. But instead of going to the back door she will quietly go lay down in another part of the house where she can still see the visitor, and wait a while before she gets up and calmly goes to greet them (or check them out if they are a stranger.)
After a bit she will go lay down again quietly, out of the way, but where she can keep an eye on things.

Best dog on earth. Seriously.

@Dutchess_III Who says they’re specifically looking for pits? Maybe they just don’t have the reflexive hostility toward pits that suburbanites do.

I’m more afraid of an alpha dog that doesn’t obey its master than anything in the world.

Bub was an Alpha. Take him to the dog park and He Was In Charge. He didn’t bark, he didn’t nip, he didn’t bother anyone. Every other dog knew He Was The Boss.

And in our house, he did as he was damn well told. Because WE were HIS boss. And that made him comfortable. He was there to protect us, because we wanted him to protect us. Not because we needed him, but because that was his job. And he was good at it.

An alpha that doesn’t obey is dangerous. Almost as dangerous as a beta that doesn’t obey. Almost.

If there was no demand for pits, there would be no glut of pit puppies in the shelter @thorninmud.

She obeys if she recognizes the need @Seek, or we raise our voice, which is very, very rare. We no longer have to giver her “orders”, any more than you’d have to give an adult member of a family “orders.” She’s 14 years old. She is a senior member of the family She has it all figured out for herself.

She also knows there are times to disobey. She knows not to leave the back yard. But a few years ago she flat went over the fence, in complete disobedience of our “standing orders,” because there was a 4 year old child walking past our house, in the middle of the night, all alone and crying. She stayed with him through the night, hunkered down in an alley with him, until they found him about 8 the next morning. His Mom brought him by about a week later to thank our dog.

All we knew was that she wasn’t here when we woke up. When we learned the whole, amazing story, that’s when we realized she could have made it over that fence effortlessly, any time she ever wanted, for all these years, but, with that one exception, she never did.

She’s not your usual Alpha dog. She’s earned our respect for her own decisions.

Elderly dogs generally get a pass, because it’s a bit of an “I’m tired of your bullshit” attitude.

Generally speaking, a dog that is alpha and doesn’t recognize its master’s dominance is not a good thing.

Your dog is clearly a good dog. That anecdote is not “disobedience” like I’m thinking of. Clearly. Disobedience is growling and snapping and barking at a “Get down” order, or complete ignoring of a recall command because they have better things to do.

I agree a strongly Alpha dog, of any breed, that is not properly managed/trained poses a threat.
I have really enjoyed this discussion and think all of our contributions and opinions have merit. In conclusion I would like to just summarize my main sentiments.

1. I do not think all Pit Bulls are bad, but I do think they are among the higher risk breeds beyond a shadow of a doubt.

2. I agree that owner ignorance, neglect, lack of proper training, all contribute to any dogs, potential behavioral issues.

3. I do believe that breeding is a big factor in temperament and while certain behavioral traits can be mitigated by proper socialization and training, the nature of some beasts is pretty hardwired. I would not get a Tiger cub and expect it to behave like a house cat inspite of how much I loved and trained it. You can take the animal out of the wild but you cannot take the wild out of the animal.

4. I do believe certain breeds are a better fit than others for family pets and I also think there are many lovely Pit Bulls out there but they would not be my breed of choice.

5. The biggest issue I have with these dogs and the other high risk breeds, is their propensity to actually kill, not just bite, but flat out kill their victims, be that human or animal. This, coupled with questionable breeding practices does, indeed, tip the scales for me in terms of potential problematic behaviors. Getting any dog is a crap shoot in terms of what you might end up with, bu I do think certain breeds pose a higher risk than others and it seems my sentiments do have some pretty solid backing.

It’s been fun, but man, I have to get off my ass and now and go exercise myself. lol

@Dutchess_III _“As I told a friend, there are some awful people who select pits specifically for their aggression. If they get them as puppies, they select them solely based on the aggressive nature of their parents. Then they go and breed them with another dog who was also selected for their aggressiveness.
Then they pop out litter after litter in their trashy back yards, and all those puppies get released into the general population eventually. Most end up abandoned or abused, some find good homes, but they’ve all been bred in the hope that they will be dangerously aggressive.“_

You get a dog because you think it has an aggressive nature. You then house it in deplorable conditions, mistreat it, raise it to act aggressively and, big surprise, it’s going to be aggressive. But the reason for it’s aggression isn’t nature.

@Darth_Algar I totally agree with your 1st paragraph but…It is both nature and nurture always, hands down, 90% of the time. Nature can be mitigated by proper nurture but genetic predisposition cannot be ignored.
The trickle down effect of puppies bred for extreme aggression that make their way into the homes of non-slimeball owners can and does happen. Some genuinely decent people like the breeds look and while they may have no interest in mis-using the dog if they choose a puppy/dog with a faulty breeding back round, unbeknownst to them they, very well, could end up with serious behavioral problems.

We have a little slaughter rescue mustang filly here that has severely clubbed feet. She would not be a good breeding animal and the odds of her throwing her deformity to her foals would be high. Same goes for temperament. I do not understand why this is such a difficult fact to be accepted. Anyone that truly knows anything about animals knows that breeding for stable temperament is, hands down, one of the most important factors in any breeding program from dogs to horses.

You can cite your “facts” all you want, you can weave your ranching into the conversation all you want, but your claims about pits, however, do not hold up to actual scientific scrutiny.

Dakota has never growled at me! Ever! I can’t remember her growling at anyone or anything, ever.

She didn’t need to. One time soon after we got her, I came home unexpectedly. She came out of the bedroom and was standing there, head lowered, when I came around the corner. The warning in her eyes was unmistakable. Scared the shit out of me!
I froze in terror, then said…“D…Dakota….?”
She instantly relaxed with relief and came to me, wagging her tail apologetically and said, “I am so glad it was you! I hate tearing into people like they used to try and make me do.”
She was about 2 weeks out of guard / attack dog training that the guy we got her from, had put her through. She hated it. I know she did. She liked the athletics involved (and practiced them on me once. Knocked me on my butt! She thought it was great fun. /:) but she refused to attack someone who had done nothing wrong.
The guy got sick of that “disobedience,” and Rick and he happened to cross paths a few times, and the next thing I know I had the most beautiful, intelligent dog in the world.

If she refuses to come now it’s because she’s hurting. I’m not going to enforce my “dominance” on her, though I could.

Hell, when I’m vacuuming I never vacuum in the room she’s laying it. It’s painful to see her laboriously pull her self up to move.

Rick made a handicap ramp for her a few months ago so she doesn’t have to climb the steps of the deck.

Soon, you will meet Maggie! My oldest daughter’s dog! I love that dog. Her step daughter, who was 15 at the time, picked her out of box of puppies someone had on the sidewalk about 3 years ago. They told her the dog was a pit. She picked him out because she thought he was a pit. You know how cool it is to own a pit bull.
She was wrong. She is a beautiful, very unique dog, but the way she looks will certainly demonstrate the tendency of some people to just label some dogs as pits, helter skelter.
I have no problem with her.
However, she can be quite aggressive in guarding her “own,” like if a strange dogs passes the back yard while she’s in it. She leaves no doubt that you’re history if you come in.
Unlike Dakota who would just quietly watch and wait, on high alert.

Pics to come. I took them just for you guys.

Oh, hey! We can play a game! It will be called “Name that dog!” We’ll see who can figure the breed mix out!

@Darth_Algar How then, do you explain, that 77% of all fatal dog attacks are perpetrated by Pits and Pit X’s documented by animal control seizures and photographic evidence. ???

@Coloma Explaining it is easier when you learn more about the source of your statistics.

@Coloma His point is that in attacks, the dogs are described as “pits,” by eye witnesses, the owners of the dogs, and animal control / police records, which are then picked up by the press, and the press is being used as the source for the “statistics.”
However, people are likely to describe “any stocky, short haired, muscular dog as a pit bull.”
There is a truth to that. But I think the bigger truth is that stocky, muscular dogs (the ones you describe as “bully”) are the ones responsible for the majority of severe attacks and deaths, whether they are pit, pit mixes, or otherwise.
I don’t think any one could confuse a dalmatian for a pit, or an afghan, or a collie, or a beagle, or a chow, or a spaniel, or any number of a thousand dogs as a pit bull. Only stocky, short haired, muscular dogs.

Unless you live in Canada, in which case it’s long-haired Malamute or Husky-type dogs. Or in neighborhoods where bully breeds are disallowed, in which case it’s some other breed.

It’s really uncommon in my area for someone to be bitten by a Malamute. But that’s because it’s over 80 degrees here, 90 percent of the time. It’s downright animal abuse to own a Malamute in Florida.

Yeah, short haired breeds probably don’t do well in far northern climes. Like, probably kills ‘em.

I think it’s cruel to have a Husky or Malamute, or other double coated, heavy haired dog anyplace where it gets above 60 degrees. Even Dakota I worry about, although she does get pretty thin haired, finally (after shedding tons and tons and tons of hair) in summer. We do everything we can to keep her as cool as possible, short of shaving her. We brush her daily. We mist her on hot days, like a dang plant!

@ Dutchess III I maintain that people are familiar enough with the look of Pits to be able to accurately describe them 950% of the time. That’s my point, if it LOOKS like a Pit or Pit mix, most likely it IS a Pit or Pit mix. Every-single-account I have seen that shows photos of the attacking dog in question IS a Pit or Pit mix. No doubt about it.

A picture is worth a thousand words and there is no mistaking a Pit Bull type dog. People are not as stupid as we think they are. I think there are very few people that do not recognize a Pit Bull type dog when they see one. Sooo, my point is, the Pit defenders are just looking for loopholes to defend a breed of dog that has, historically, been BRED for it’s aggressive traits.

@thorninmud Right, as the article states, well adjusted, properly socialized dogs of all breeds will be less likely to bite, but, sorry, when I see dozens of photographs of Pits and Pit x’s that are responsible for fatal maulings, FATAL, not just bites, well, to hell with the sources, I see the evidence. These dogs are a menace in many circumstances, it is indisputable. The question is, would I want to risk owning a Pit, the answer is no. I’m not a gambling women.

OK, I’ve had too much beer so it’s time for me to log out of the virtual world, but while I’m feeling maudlin I have to say: I’m sorry about going on and on about how amazing Dakota is, but she is. She is, because she has the intelligence to disregard the “commands” of her owners / trainers when she is sure that they are commanding her to do the wrong thing. This means that 99.99% of the time she’ll agreeably do what you ask her to do, even anticipate what you’re going to ask, but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

Without fail, if she ignores us, and we explore further, we find a damn good reason for it,

For example, if, for some reason we’d seen her go over that five foot fence at 2:30 in the morning, not knowing there was a small child in distress, if we had yelled at her to come back, there is no doubt in my mind she would have ignored us.

If she had somehow wound up as a service dog, I think she’d be a national celebrity. There were times, when she was younger, I thought of donating her services (with her permission, of course.)

And tomorrow you’ll meet Maggie. Super cool dog!

Good night.

@Coloma Getting your information about Pits through DogsBite.org is like trying to learn what Muslims (or Mexicans, for that matter) are like from Donald Trump. Her entire mission is to get Pis and Rotties banned. When this is your motivation from the outset, what kind of “research” do you think is going to come out of it? She traffics in propaganda that appeals to our primal fears, with absolutely no regard for the rigor of actual research. That’s why virtually every serious dog organization rejects both her “research” and her conclusions.

But, as you’ve found, her site is a great easy-to-find source for anyone who wants to confirm their suspicions that Pits are too risky to own. Don’t fall for that bullshit. You ask, “why would I want to risk owning a pit?” Because the cumulative effect of millions of people taking that attitude fueled by misinformation is millions of dead dogs and cops taking away family pets because they happen to look like a Pit.

@thorninmud I wasn’t considering that site to be 100% accurate but I do consider this source to be quite credible. www.livescience.com/27145-are-pit-bulls-dangerous.html

The answer here is exactly what I am saying, “Do Pit Bulls deserve their reputations as vicious “attack” dogs?” The answer ” yes, in SOME instances they do.” I think plastic surgeons and The American Journal of Forensic Pathology are pretty solid sources. I disagree this is about mere “suspician” it is a fact, that these dogs, along with Rotts and Shepherds are the most likely to bite, attack and KILL their victims. One study also found that morbidity was much higher amongst victims of PB attacks than other breeds. Why? because these dogs attack to the death often and leave severe, severe, injuries above and beyond what is seem from mere dog bites.

Meet Maggie! To recap, my daughters step daughter chanced upon a box of “free puppies” on someone’s sidewalk. Her stepdaughter was 15 at the time. They told her they were pits. You know how cool it is to have a pit so she brought one home.

Maggie likes us. We like her. When we walked into the house my daughter was grinning. She said, when you were walking up Maggie charged the door starting to bark (a trait I do not like in dogs) but she choked back her first bark and was whining, “Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!” instead!
I said, “Did she recognize us?”
Laughing, my daughter nodded.

I’m putting this pic first, because I want you guys to examine her body structure carefully, before you see her face. Notice how thin she is around the back hips, how long legged.
As you can see, she loves Rick. She’s trying to literally shove her way into his heart.

This one was taken when I was saying her name so she’d look at the camera. She was saying, “Oh! Oh! I love you too! But I’m not done with Rick!”

Then she turned and really looked at me and then she crawled over to me and stuck her face in mine and just licked and licked. I took her head in mine hands and held it going, “Maggie. I don’t even like you. Stop it.” About that time I damn near got a French kiss! BLEH!!
It’s obvious by this pic she’s not a pit! She’s a boxer.

And here is one of her bouncing all over the back yard. It’s very interesting. She’s quite calm in the house…she’s excitable, but she keeps it in a bubble around her. She doesn’t barge through the house running into people and stuff. But in the back yard she’s a bullet. That dog can RUN. I mean, you get her out on open ground and she’s just a streak going by. We wish we had a pitch meter to put on her.

And, Here is the final shot. Sorry she’s not looking at the camera, but I’m just lucky I got a shot of her standing still.

And that’s Maggie.

So, it’s obvious by her face what part of her lineage is (boxer) but it’s up for grabs what the other dominate lineage is. (We have our own ideas, but wanted to see what you guys say.)

@Dutchess_III The brindle coloring is pretty much limited to a handful or so of breeds. I forgot to mention Greyhounds, Italian greyhounds and Whippets when I shared that little tidbit somewhere above here, in the sea of debate. haha
I would say Maggie looks more Boxer to me, brindle is also a popular Boxer coat coat, but, in the headless Maggie photo she also has some Greyhound/Whippet like body structure. Of course it is impossible to say and while she may have Pit in her, I see more of a Boxer/ perhaps even Greyhound/Whippet influence.

Her head & hind quarters certainly look Boxer like to me but she is rather extra slender through her hips so maybe some Greyhound in there too. Also, puppies from a mixed litter can show up looking vastly different than their siblings. Say a Shepherd/Lab X. One pup could take on the Shepherd influence and another more the Lab. Plus, recessive genes can be pulled out generations later, so Maggie might have Pit and Boxer in her but her great, great, great, grandfather was a Greyhound and after generations she pulled that trait out of the genetic hat.

Again, to be perfectly clear, I am just going off visual markers and in no way am claiming any certain truths to my observation.

I’d also like to add that my link to livescience above also says that many Pits are owned by what is considered, “high risk” people as well. We all know these dogs are the breed of choice for a lot of rif raffy types, no denying that. So I would also, totally agree that when you couple, a high risk breed with a high risk owner the odds of seeing aggressive behaviors is much more likely.

That was our guess too, boxer / greyhound, but I was doing some research and came across the whippet last night. My guess would be that, because they are roughly the same size, height-wise, as a boxer. Also, there are whippets with that brindle coloring. Also, gray hounds.

Of course you can’t claim any certain truths! Neither can I. I wonder if vets do dna testing? It would be interesting to find out.

She’s a wonderful dog, but I honestly would be a little uneasy with her around the kids because she can be so aggressive in some situations. I suppose much of it is just energy.

You know, when I first met her I was a little wary because she is so excitable. It’s hard to read excitable dogs. I much prefer turning around and Lo! There is a yellow lab behind you, gently waging his tail, waiting for you to notice him so you will pet him! Those kind don’t scare me. I still make sure they have a chance to sniff me first before I touch them.

@Dutchess III Yeah, exuberance can be intimidating but being exuberant doesn’t mean aggressive. One of the horses here is like that. She gets all, what we call “big.”
Pushy, in your face, starts jumping around, head tossing especially when you have her feed bucket, but…as soon as you give her a firm ‘QUIT and a slap on the shoulder she backs right off and gets all sheepish like to say ” I was just playing.”

To everyone else that has participated:

I think that there are many truths and do not see this discussion from a right/wrong dichotomy POV.
Nature matters, nurture matters, personal ownership responsibility matters. I think everyone here has posited some very strong evidence for both nature/nurture, responsible dog ownership and of course, the real issue, the CORE issue, anytime their is a glut of “surplus” animals of any breed, coupled with faulty breeding practices you will see more bad, dangerous behaviors, incidents. The sheer glut of Pit Bulls in this country, in the wrong hands, filling up the shelters, well…sadly, I think the only answer ( spaying and neutering aside ) is that a great many need to be euthanized, sadly.

There is simply not enough homes for these dogs and because of their reputations, the fact they are implicated in many attacks and deaths and the fact that they are the breed of choice for so many high risk people, and most people are not dog savvy enough to be the type of informed owners they need to be the best representation of their breed.
It is not a popular opinion but…I don’t think everything can or, more importantly, at times, SHOULD be saved.

Well….obviously, this horse, er dog, has been beaten to death now. haha

Being exuberant doesn’t mean aggressive. I know that @Coloma. I have an exuberant dog. My point was, upon meeting a dog for the first time, an exuberant one is harder to “read” than a calm one.

And I swear, I’m going to shoot the first person who says, “But even calm dogs…...” Yes, I know this too. But when things are calm you have more time to observe, so move slowly away if you think it is warranted, than when a dog is whipping around you in a frenzy. But you can still be bitten by a calm dog. Yes, I know.

I have never been bitten by a dog. Had that stupid shepherd snap at me that one time. That’s all.

@Dutchess_III I get it, yeah, I meant to say as well that when you’re talking big dog or horse, exuberance can still mean injury, or death, especially if you allow a horse to be “bouncing” around you. haha Body language too, a bucking horse with pinned ears means danger, a bucking horse tossing his head playfully with perky ears means “I’m just feelin’ good.”

You forgot to say “But even calm dogs…”

After reading all of this I really do understand why people take offense to black listing a whole breed, and why they compare it to racism. The analogy to racism does kind of hold for me. I still am afraid of pitbulls, I still think they cause a lot of the serious harm bites, as do the other dogs at the top of the list.

I don’t care that it might be “racist” I care that dog owners aren’t blind to when a dog (any breed) or their own dog (any breed) is overly aggressive with provocation or without. I don’t see any reason to insist on getting a pitbull or pit mix to prove something, some people do do that I believe, but I do appreciate when people adopt from shelters to save dogs, rather than going to a breeder.

A strong jaw and physique gives that dog a better chance of causing serious harm than a different type of dog, so you have to evaluate the risk. If they never attack there is no problem, but if they do the risk of serious harm is higher with pit than most other dogs. It doesn’t matter why if I’m the one attacked and maimed.

Here are the questions to ask about any statistic, no matter what the source, regarding dog bite injuries attributed to breeds:

-Is the breed identification reliable? Who made the ID, and by what means? Even hospitals that record breed information in dog bite cases just use whatever information is provided by whoever fills out the admission form, without any subsequent verification.

-What is the distribution of breeds in the area of the attack? Does the proportion of attacks by a certain type of dog simply reflect that a preponderance of dogs in that area have that type? (per the shelter attendant where I adopted my dog, “Pretty much all the dogs we get have some pit in them”)

-Under what conditions are the dogs kept? If most dogs of type A are cared for, supervised, contained, socialized, while most dogs of type B are not, then you can be guaranteed that you will see more attacks from type B, regardless of which breeds you’re talking about.

-Are all attacks accounted for in the sampling from which the statistics are derived? This is one of the problems with using press reports as a statistical source. The press widely publicizes attacks involving dogs ID’d as Pits, while attacks that name other breeds (or no breed) get much less attention.

If any of these factors is unaccounted for, then the fact is that the statistic is useless in characterizing the bite risk of a particular breed. That may be frustrating for people who really want to back up their assumptions with a number, but that’s the cold fact and it can’t just be shrugged off. People who trot out flawed stats anyway (because it seems to match what they already think) are irresponsibly contributing to unnecessary suffering.

@JLeslie There is this idea out there that Pits have extraordinary force, but that simply doesn’t hold up. A figure appeared at some point supposedly attributing a bite force many times stronger than that of other dogs. I don’t remember what the p.s.i. originally reported was, but it doesn’t matter anyway because that figure has been endlessly repeated, growing with every retelling.

But nobody, nobody has any idea where that figure originated. A researcher who specializes in measuring bite force of various animals, Dr. Brady Barr, measured a Pit bull’s bite at 235 p.s.i., slightly under the German Shepherd and 4th from the top of the dogs he measured.

All kinds of claims are made about how Pits supposedly attack in their own, especially scary way, but that’s all part of the myth. Just because you heard it somewhere doesn’t mean it’s true.

I wouldn’t encourage anyone to adopt a pit “to make a point”. I would encourage people to adopt dogs that need homes and that will be killed otherwise. If people would just do that, then Pits would naturally take their place in society as normal dogs, not the monsters of our imagination.

@Coloma Re. ”.... most attacks occur on the owners property.” Then should that mean they be muzzled there too?

And re. “Requiring all dogs to be muzzled in public would be akin to requiring all citizens to wear handcuffs in public because they might commit a crime.” It’s not about all dogs, just the ones whose attack can lead to serious injury or death. AndI re. the handcuffs, I think if I were suggesting shackes on the dogs then I can see the handcuffs comparison. Thanks for responding.

This is my son’s dog. It’s a blue heeler. I do not like this dog, Sam I Am. He’s too rambunctious. He doesn’t just jump on people, he throws himself at people. Once he ran around the two year old who was standing in the yard, and wiped her off her feet. I mean, she went flying. She landed on her back. But, being the crazy kid that she is, she didn’t cry. She just said a surprised little, “Oh!”
When I came down the steps to the back yard he damn near threw me off the steps..
I texted my son today. I said “I wish you would consider rehoming Blue to a farm and get a Cocker Spaniel. It makes me nervous having him around the kids..” Then I reminded him that his childhood dog, Snuffy, was a Cocker mix.
But….we’ll see.

It’s more of a general problem.

- We believe in anecdotes rather than science

- The dog world is full of pseudo-science (such as the alpha myths)

- Very few people know how to interpret the real science correctly

[Mod says] Moved to Social with OP’s permission.

@longgone Nowadays though plenty that’s presented by “science” sounds like quackery. As long as it starts with “Study shows”, or “research shows”.anyone can say any ridiculous thing.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a9e3/medical-benefits-dental-floss-unproven

Well, we actually prefer to see those “studies” or “research” for ourselves, and check out their sources.

Most of us here, on Fluther, aren’t going to fall for “Research has shown,” and just assume that what follows is true.