Thoughts on Pitbulls?

[Mark Rippetoe]

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.

Gosh, I wonder why that might be? Could it be that kids are smaller than adults, and less able to deal with a dog attack?

[Jason Donaldson]

Gosh, I wonder why that might be? Could it be that kids are smaller than adults, and less able to deal with a dog attack?

Compounded by being more likely to precipitate a dog attack, for multiple reasons: More likely to try to play with strange dogs, blunder into them by accident, elicit predation instincts by running/thrashing/emitting high-pitched squeals, tease dogs in unwise ways, etc[/I]. Responsible parenting helps with all of those, and responsible dog ownership mitigates most, too.

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.

Agreed, in the same way that one should keep swimming safety facts in mind if one has kids or a pool that will be used by kids.

Those are statistics that can’t be fudged.

I have no reason to doubt that these particular numbers were fudged, but to assert that they can't?

Consider an earlier statement that a source had zero accounting for dog bites from a breed heavily used for WMDs and and police dogs, uses that include roles that quite specifically entail that the animal bite people...

[David A. Rowe]

Gosh, I wonder why that might be? Could it be that kids are smaller than adults, and less able to deal with a dog attack?

There was a baby in Colorado killed by a Labrador *puppy*.

I would rather stay around any breed of dog with a responsible owner vs any breed with an irresponsible/unknowledgeable owner.

Furthermore, as has already been discussed, each dog rehabilitation is different. Dogs can be rehabilitated if given the time and environment to do so, and no dog of any breed should be completely trusted in certain situations.

Because they're dogs.

[Mark Rippetoe]

But Zinedine here doesn't own a dog, so this is outside his experience.

[David A. Rowe]

But Zinedine here doesn't own a dog, so this is outside his experience.

I know, Rip. I guess it's strange that statistics in the absence of tacit knowledge still produces a feeling of entitlement in some to tell others how a thing is or should be.

You think I'd eventually get used to it.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I haven't.

[tompaynter]

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.[/QUOTE]

A person comes into a shelter with a pitbull and says, I want to give this dog up. How much vetting do you think the shelter can do? I'm sure the shelter asks the owner some questions. Do you think the shelter staff make a home visit? Does some kind of FBI-style background check where they talk to other family members, neighbors, etc. to check the owner's answers? I highly doubt it. I bet they ask the owner questions, observe the dog a little, and that's about all they can do. Do you think that an owner who has abused the dog, or raised the dog to be aggressive, is honest with the shelter staff about that?

Do I believe a mistreated dog can "never be rehabilitated by a wise and caring owner?" No. I believe that a mistreated dog can be rehabilitated by a wise and caring owner, some percentage of the time. Do you want to bet your child's face that this particular attempt at rehabilitation will succeed? Do you want to bet your child's face that your neighbor who "rescues" a pitbull is sufficiently wise and caring? What exactly is the upside of that bet that makes it worth the risk, however small you think the risk is?

I guess we disagree as to what qualifies as a chainsaw on legs. I understand that any dog can bite. Do labs or poodles or Irish setters go into killer berserk frenzies wherein they cannot be deterred by blows or kicks, where it is difficult and dangerous to control them by the collar, during which they maul a child and a grandmother to death?

[Jason Donaldson]

A person comes into a shelter with a pitbull and says, I want to give this dog up. How much vetting do you think the shelter can do? I'm sure the shelter asks the owner some questions. Do you think the shelter staff make a home visit? Does some kind of FBI-style background check where they talk to other family members, neighbors, etc. to check the owner's answers? I highly doubt it. I bet they ask the owner questions, observe the dog a little, and that's about all they can do. Do you think that an owner who has abused the dog, or raised the dog to be aggressive, is honest with the shelter staff about that?

I understand your confusion if, as it sounds, you've never had experience with a shelter or a foster group. Or, it seems, with a lot of dogs. Abused dogs generally have a lot of signs they exhibit. Poorly socialized dogs, both with respect to humans and other animals, can be spotted pretty well, too, especially in an environment like a shelter that provides controlled interactions of both kinds. Abused and neglected dogs often come into such environments by way of police/animal control, as well, which provides further background. Animal fosterers in particular tend to have experience and knowledge on these matters, as well as focused attention on the animals.

I'm seeing a tendency for an all-or-nothing pattern in your reasoning. Is any background on a dog exhaustive? Of course not. Then again, neither are FBI background checks... Like most things in life, it's a matter of risk analysis and mitigation, not certainty.

Do I believe a mistreated dog can "never be rehabilitated by a wise and caring owner?" No. I believe that a mistreated dog can be rehabilitated by a wise and caring owner, some percentage of the time. Do you want to bet your child's face that this particular attempt at rehabilitation will succeed? Do you want to bet your child's face that your neighbor who "rescues" a pitbull is sufficiently wise and caring? What exactly is the upside of that bet that makes it worth the risk, however small you think the risk is?

A house with children is a different environment than one without. I already mentioned something of how I managed that risk with children of my own, earlier. In our case, we didn't have dogs with the size or temperament to cause dire harm, and once one of them bit one child (because the child leapt on a dog he didn't see, startling the animal), we changed things to prevent that from recurring. This was because of our risk and benefit analyses, because we're grown folks, and we take responsibility for our duties.

As to the matter of neighbors, there are reasons we teach our children how to behave around animals, including not petting strange dogs. Why we have a fenced backyard. Why we've called the authorities, coordinated with neighbors, and even physically intervened when a pack of escaped neighbors' dogs were running the neighborhood. Why I carry a continuum of force tools for defending against threats. Why we pay attention to when they're outside. And so on - because that's our responsibility. We cannot control other people, nor should we want to. We must adapt to unknowns and things outside our control, and thereby not only care for our children, but teach them how to do the same in the process.

(And for what it's worth, in that neighbor's dogs scenario, the black lab mix dogs were the ones who charged at an elderly woman in a pack, and the pit bull in the group was the friendly, non-aggressive one that was happy to be led back to its house.)

I never once argued for unfettered large dog access to toddlers for any reason, nor did anyone else here. Again, you seem to be reducing these things to all-or-nothing scenarios.

I guess we disagree as to what qualifies as a chainsaw on legs. I understand that any dog can bite. Do labs or poodles or Irish setters go into killer berserk frenzies wherein they cannot be deterred by blows or kicks, where it is difficult and dangerous to control them by the collar, during which they maul a child and a grandmother to death?

Again, sir - all-or-nothing. Children and grandmothers have been killed by dogs of multiple breeds. Some people are better able to deal with more aggressive animals than others. Not all fatal or grievous maulings happen in the nightmare scenario of a berserk dog that just won't stop, either - some less intense situations cause such harm. Everyone makes judgement calls and everyone makes risk analysis. By the same token, as some have said here, there are people with experience with pit bulls that have never gone into blind killer rages. There have also been non-pits who have gone into such states.

You cannot eliminate all risk, and all the more so with children around. No one lives like a Pierson's Puppeteer, with no hard edges in the house, everything padded, nothing sharp or hard or dangerous at all. It's just not feasible. Otherwise, houses with children would have no electricity, no running water, hardly any furniture, etc. And even then, eliminating those risks would introduce others...

You don't want a pit bull? Fine. I fully respect and support your decision, and think no less of you for it. But to depict the decisions of others as deficient by filtering them through your personal calculus and not theirs is not right, either. Perhaps I'm misreading your argument there - if so, I will respectfully apologize in all good will.

[ColeTrain]

I find the people who say all the Pits should be euthanized funny. Like they think they'll be able to go up to guys like Rip's house and just take their dogs to kill them without coming down with a case of severe lead poisoning