Children Need Pit Bulls: A Picture Book

[DirkGently]

89. So if this one awful dog was a "Pit Bull," you have proved something?

C'mon. What would that even be? You seem to want to imply that you have anecdotes proving something about some kind of dog, but you haven't said what it is. "Destructive potential?" "Maiming?" I've got an anecdote too -- my friend the federal LEO fears dogs to this day because a neighbor's Lab put lifelong scars on his face. You think a "nice" family pet with a less fearsome name can't maim and kill?

I appreciate that you don't want to cop to generalizing or fearing a dog based on its appearance.

So what exactly do you contend? The animals we call Pit Bulls are ... what? Extra dangerous? Extra unpredictable? They can be. So can Rottweilers, Mastiffs, Akitas, Huskies, German Shepherds, and every mix you can think of. You don't seem to want to contradict the fact that "Pit bull" as related in anecdotes and news reports is an unreliable moniker that at best describes three distinct breeds, and often just relies on looks.


Big dogs can hurt things. They are related to wolves and have powerful bites and a variety of instinctive, taught, and socialized behaviors that include attacking other animals and people under certain circumstances. But they are domestic animals, and it comes down to human responsibility to keep other people and animals safe.

I am genuinely horrified by your personal anecdote and very sorry that happened to anyone. The dog that did that was clearly a danger to the community and should have been contained. The Lab that ripped my friend's face was ... wait for it ... a supposedly harmless family pet as well.

What dog owner doesn't say they never knew their animal was a danger? Maybe the psycho drug dealer with his street-bred whatevers, but any responsible person whose dog does something terrible will tell you they are surprised.

You want to make rolly-eyes emoticons at me about the idea Pit Bulls are misidentified / maligned in the media? Would you believe the CDC?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 1979–1998[edit]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in 2000 on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979–1998. The report concluded that relying on media coverage of dog-bite-related fatalities presents a biased view of the dogs involved. They stated that media reports are likely to only cover about 74% of the actual incidents and that dog attacks involving certain breeds may be more likely to receive media coverage. They also reported that since breed identification is difficult and subjective, attacks may be more likely to be "ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression".[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

What's actually is turning anecdotes into conclusions based on factors you can't reliably know. Animals are individual creatures, and as DOMESTIC animals, dogs are the products of human treatment and conditioning. You don't know a dog by looking any more than you know a person.

The fact is that everyone needs to be aware that large, powerful dogs can do terrible damage, and can have bred-in or socialized behaviors that attune them to attacking other animals or people. That's it. German Shepherds were the big villain dog decades ago. Then Dobermans. Then Rottweilers. Before that, it was other big breeds:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 1974–1975[edit]

The first epidemiological study of dog-bite fatalities in the United States was conducted by an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1977.[5] The study reported that all but one of the cases involved male dogs. The breeds reported in these incidents were St. Bernard, German Shepherd, Dachshund, Basenji, Collie, Husky, and Great Dane. Most incidents involved victims who were smaller or weaker than the dog. Thus, children under 5 years old accounted for the majority of victims. The study concluded that human behavior which the dogs perceived as threatening was the single most important factor contributing to these incidents.

If you want to generalize, watch out for MALE dogs, particularly un-neutered ones. That's the reliable statistic that holds up best and actually means something. And it's a lot harder to fudge or get wrong than calling every big-headed agressive dog a "Pit Bull!!"

The fact that a group of breeds and mixes that became extremely popular in the U.S. with people including dogfight breeders and criminals, who set out to create horrificly aggressive animals does not mean that every animal that looks a certain way is one of those. If all the idiots who want to keep a dangerous dog picked Mastiffs (and many do) or Shepherds, you'd have people claiming they were inherently dangerous as well.

University of Texas Study: 1966–1980[edit]

(snip)

In 6 of the incidents, there was no information available about the breed of dogs involved. Of the remaining 68 fatalities, many involved large and powerful molosser breeds: eight Saint Bernards, six Bull terriers, six Great Danes, as well as two attacks by Boxers and one by a Rottweiler.

In contrast to the time period covered by the CDC study, which found pit bulls and Rottweilers to be the most commonly involved breed in such attacks during that time period, this study found no fatal pit bull attacks at all in the US during its time period, and only one Rottweiler attack.

Ancient and spitz breeds also committed a significant minority of the attacks. These were mostly sled dog breeds (nine Husky breeds and five were Malamutes), but there was also one Chow Chow and one Basenji.

However, by far the most common specific single breed involved in fatal attacks (16) was the German Shepherd Dog, which, like the two Doberman Pinschers also listed, is a product of an intensive documented breeding program involving quite unrelated canine bloodlines to create a superior working dog. There were also two identified only as collies, although the breed was not specified.

There were multiple retriever attacks, including three Goldens and one Labrador, and there were two fatal attacks by very small breeds: a Dachshund, which is a very small scenthound bred to work as a terrier, and one Yorkshire Terrier, which is among the smallest of all dogs. Finally, in ten of the attacks, the dogs were only described as mixed breed.

Look, think what you want. But there's no rational basis to hate or condemn or assume to be especially dangerous dogs people call "Pit Bulls," whether that actual breed, the other two also called by that name, or varieties of mixes and mistakes reported in the news.

Dogs bite. Big dogs can bite very hard. Some dogs are aggressive. Caution, not hatred or generalization, is the rational response.