Thoughts on Pitbulls?

[zinedine kilbane]

Ok. So we’re all pretty much agreed on the stats. Pit bull type breeds make up maybe 5-10% of dogs in America and do about 60-70% of bad attacks and killings. And agreed on the basic physiology of them being fighting dogs with impressive biting strength. they are thus inherently a relatively dangerous animal to keep around. Orders of magnitude more dangerous than other dog breeds.

Saying dog fighting breeds tend to fight other dogs and not humans is a serious leap in logic. And all of the statistics argue against this, as they literally attack people at hugely disproportionate rates.

This is definitely something that should be kept in mind when picking a dog breed if you live near other people and in particular children.

Original poster- if you need a dog to guard your impound lot and he’s going to just be in the impound and not interacting with people it could be a good breed.
If you are just a regular person in the suburbs I would say that it’s a ridiculous level of risk to take.

I am Not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to have them. Just that we should be honest here.

I’d also support some rules about muzzling them in public and maybe having some sort of licence. Obviously the licensing would be a bit useless but would probably put off the worst people from getting them.

Also personally I wouldn’t keep one in my house with kids for a million bucks.

This isn’t like gun ownership where it’s an inanimate object. Even with perfect training and ownership it’s still an animal. Could go off at any time. More equivalent to having an automated gun turret or something. Probly gonna malfunction every once in a while

[smokeyjones]

There is no counter argument against it other than “my betsie here is a good old girl who would never bite anyone”.

People in balaclavas commit more robberies than people in sun hats.

Is the issue the headgear? Or the person?

[Steve Cox]

At the site south of me where I had to work for a week or so out of the month before I retired last month, and is known as the meth capital of SW Missouri, I encountered many pit bulls, and with only a few exceptions most were the most loveable and friendly animals I've ever found. A couple would follow you around for several blocks like the dog was my best friend and would always try jumping in my truck to go for a ride. The few that were bad, the owners were worse, so I was already on guard for them since Liberty Utilities didn't allow us to arm or protect ourselves.

In those two years, there were some close near-attacks, and they weren't pit bulls. But the one actual attack that truly scared me and I just barely avoided injury was from a rottweiler. Fortunately I had my walking stick - a water meter stick with a bent knife edge nail on the end - and got away at the last minute only by swinging and fortunately cutting the dog; it never bothered me after that. But IMO that is one truly bad breed, and I can't remember meeting one that out of habit was truly nice to strangers. But by and large, pit bulls get a bad rep.

[dalan]

But the one actual attack that truly scared me and I just barely avoided injury was from a rottweiler. Fortunately I had my walking stick - a water meter stick with a bent knife edge nail on the end - and got away at the last minute only by swinging and fortunately cutting the dog; it never bothered me after that. But IMO that is one truly bad breed, and I can't remember meeting one that out of habit was truly nice to strangers. But by and large, pit bulls get a bad rep.

Rotties have this thing where they know what's theirs and they aren't shy about telling you to get off their lawn, dammit.

[Jason Donaldson]

...
This is definitely something that should be kept in mind when picking a dog breed if you live near other people and in particular children.
...
I am Not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to have them. Just that we should be honest here.

I’d also support some rules about muzzling them in public and maybe having some sort of licence. Obviously the licensing would be a bit useless but would probably put off the worst people from getting them.

Also personally I wouldn’t keep one in my house with kids for a million bucks.

This isn’t like gun ownership where it’s an inanimate object. Even with perfect training and ownership it’s still an animal. Could go off at any time. More equivalent to having an automated gun turret or something. Probly gonna malfunction every once in a while

I appreciate your clarifications. Please forgive me for incorrectly lumping your ideas in with prohibitionism.

I think we still disagree on some things, like the nature of the statistics, especially some breeds are disproportionately obtained by bad actors and thereby raised/treated irresponsibly, which again reflects on the humans involved more than the breed.

From my experience and discussions with people with a variety of perspectives, it's pretty well established that smaller and more neurotically-inclined dogs have higher bite rates as a general rule. Since they're not equipped to do as much damage, those bites are underreported, patterns of biting are allowed to continue, etc. Also, people often underestimate them, treat them as cutesy instead of as dogs, and so on. Having owned two very good Dachshunds, I have observed some of this directly. One of ours bit one of my sons once - ONCE. It was not the dog's fault in this case, but it did lead to immediate changes in handling, so that it would never happen again. This is the responsibility of an owner - you have to control your animal. Since some breeds are equipped to do more damage when they do attack a person, this must be taken into account. Your calculus on such things may differ from mine or Rip's or anyone else's, and that's okay - we're each taking responsibility for our own.

I would disagree that rules and licensing would help, and especially that it should be breed-specific. You are responsible by law for your animal, so if you need to muzzle, then you should muzzle, whether it's a pit bull, a great Dane, or a miniature poodle. I don't think a permit process is going to help any more with this than with most things...and most municipalities already require dog licenses already.

Another factor I'll throw out there. Do you know why switchblades have been illegal in big cities for over a hundred years? Because they were associated long ago with those greasy, nasty, criminal Eye-talians in the public eye. Early gun ownership permit laws were instituted in big cities and the Jim Crow south with the "good moral character" requirement, serving to keep guns out of the hands of black residents. If a certain type of "undesirables" engage in a particular behavior, vilifying that behavior and outlawing it is an effective way to keep the people out, or at the very least to send a message that they're not welcome. Between that sort of thing and the "Someone must do something, and if you (re)elect me, I'm the one who will!" factor for politicians, I think there's ample reason to question the media slant on this.

[BrooklynJerry]

I had 2 pitbull rescues, a male and female. The female was very dog aggressive. One time as I was sending them into there crates the males collar got caught on the latch. He started twisting and turning violently to get free. The female came out of her still open crate and attacked him. She locked onto his ear. The only way I got her to let go was to choke her out with her collar, I thought she was dead. Luckily after a few minutes she came to. Before this incident they were always loose in my house and yard. The next ten or so years I always had to keep them separated. Strange thing tonight on the news, there was a report of an 18 month old child killed by the families " pit bull".

As far as the comment about keeping pits to guard a yard, in one of the books I read about old time breeders of "game dogs", it said they kept GSD's to keep thief's away.

[Subby]

Is there a difference between an irresponsible Dog owner with a Pit Bull and a Labrador? Which one would be more dangerous to you and your Children?

[tompaynter]

It seems to me that the people who say "It isn't the breed, it's how the dog was raised" are the same people who adopt rescue pitbulls. If you believe that it is poor treatment that makes the dogs dangerous, you'd never adopt a pitbull of uncertain provenance, right? It might have been raised by one of those bad owners.

Pitbulls are a huge percentage of dogs that go into animal shelters and need to find new homes. Doesn't the "It's not the dog it's the owner" logic suggest that all of them should be put down, not adopted out? They might have been treated badly by the previous owner, planting a seed for later violence. And dogs that are given up to shelters are more likely to have belonged to irresponsible people.

I point this out to argue that the "it's the owner" people don't follow their own idea to its logical conclusion.

I tend to believe that pitbulls, however sweet they are 99.99% of the time, have a switched that can be unpredictably flipped to send them into fighting dog behavior. And when that happens they are unusually dangerous because of the power of their bite and their gameness. Once they start they don't stop, and they have very high pain tolerance, etc., so that they are very hard to stop. Why own a dog that might turn into a chainsaw on legs, when there are so many other charming dog breeds that don't have this risk?

[zinedine kilbane]

Some important context on the deaths from dog attack statistics.

In America about 30% of those killed are under 4 years old. And about 60% are under 16.

Those are statistics that can’t be fudged. Granted I don’t have specifics on exactly how many are killed by pittbull type dogs.

Most of the people killed by dogs are kids though. Important to keep in mind if you have kids or your dog will interact with kids.

[Jason Donaldson]

Is there a difference between an irresponsible Dog owner with a Pit Bull and a Labrador? Which one would be more dangerous to you and your Children?

Of course - just like between a mastiff and a pug, for example. Or a dog vs a hamster. This is part of the responsibility of the owner. Also, depending on the situation, of the parents, if they're not the owners - I mitigate my children's exposure to all manner of risk, including that of the pets of others, to the extent possible and reasonable, through a variety of strategies and practices.

It seems to me that the people who say "It isn't the breed, it's how the dog was raised" are the same people who adopt rescue pitbulls. If you believe that it is poor treatment that makes the dogs dangerous, you'd never adopt a pitbull of uncertain provenance, right? It might have been raised by one of those bad owners.

Pitbulls are a huge percentage of dogs that go into animal shelters and need to find new homes. Doesn't the "It's not the dog it's the owner" logic suggest that all of them should be put down, not adopted out? They might have been treated badly by the previous owner, planting a seed for later violence. And dogs that are given up to shelters are more likely to have belonged to irresponsible people.

I point this out to argue that the "it's the owner" people don't follow their own idea to its logical conclusion.

I tend to believe that pitbulls, however sweet they are 99.99% of the time, have a switched that can be unpredictably flipped to send them into fighting dog behavior. And when that happens they are unusually dangerous because of the power of their bite and their gameness. Once they start they don't stop, and they have very high pain tolerance, etc., so that they are very hard to stop. Why own a dog that might turn into a chainsaw on legs, when there are so many other charming dog breeds that don't have this risk?

As someone in the "human not dog" camp, but who adopted dogs, but NOT pitbulls, there's a couple of things I think you're missing with regards to those adopting animals, Tom.

First, the ability to vet the animals (no pun intended), both by the shelter and by the adopter. This is not absolute, of course, but neither is it zero. Most shelters I've encountered have stipulations like "this dog should not be around children", "this dog should not go into a home with other dogs", and so on. A lot of them I've encountered have indeed put down some animals identified as non-adoptable, in fact.

Second, do you believe that a dog once mistreated can never be rehabilitated by a wise and caring owner? That "good dog" status is perishable, but "bad dog" status is immutable? If so, then yes, your accusation about logical conclusions applies, but only if so. If, instead, a mistreated dog can be helped, then those adopting them may be quite consistent and thorough in their reasoning, depending on how they then take responsibility for their animal. I suspect I'm not the only one here with some personal evidence of the latter.

Additionally, ANY dog might turn into a chainsaw on legs. It's a question of how big and dangerous a saw. Even a perfectly well-behaved dog can suffer a neurological problem and start going to town with its teeth, for example. In this case, why own any dog at all? Or at least, (more in line with your argument) why own any dog of sufficient power and size to kill any human being? It's a matter of risk analysis - if you're not willing to accept risk of a dog able to harm humans at all, that's your calculus for your household, and no one else should have a say. But some people's situations are different, and may result in accepting that risk, especially if they have good mitigations for it.