Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 83
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Pit Bull Fallacy

    I know. This has been done so many times, and everyone posts impassioned opinions about whether or not they are vicious animals. Someone has either had experience with pit bulls, whether positive or negative, or has created an opinion based on hearsay and public research.

    I am hoping to dispel some myths and enlighten the uninformed about the nature of the pit bull breeds. I do not seek to discredit any traumatic experiences or to confirm advocates assertions. All I wish to do is to offer some information that I have discovered, and share my interpretations of the breed, based on my own experiences. I truly hope that this post will help people to understand these dogs, because to understand something is to abate the fear.

    First, we must define a pit bull. Understand that the pit bull is not actually a breed of dog; it is an encapsulating term that categorizes several canine breeds, most of which fall into the "molosser" type. According to several sources, the "molosser" canines are large, solidly built dogs with heavy bones; pendant ears (triangle-shaped ears that hang); a short, well-muscled neck; and a short muzzle. The general breeds that are legally considered "pit bulls" are: American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, American Pit Bull, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, and the French Bulldog. That is a lot of breeds rolled into one.

    This leads me to another interesting fact that I have discovered. I did a little digging (my thanks to the CDC for their research publication), and apparently, between 1979 and 1999, there were 180 dog bites resulting in fatalities, 66 of which were attributed to the "pit bull-type." :

    Number of dog-bite fatalities

    Pit bull-type: 66
    Rottweiler: 39
    German Shepherd Dog: 17
    Husky-type: 15
    Malamute: 12
    Doberman Pinscher: 9
    Chow Chow: 8
    Great Dane: 7
    Saint Bernard: 7

    Total: 180

    (I am concentrating on the purebred numbers for now.)

    The number for pit bull types is certainly an alarming number, and none of these fatalities are justified in any way...however, this number encapsulates the nine breeds listed above. Additionally, identification of a "pit bull" type is not always easy. Many dog breeds are misidentified as pit bulls. I searched the rest of the statistics, but this type of classification is sporadic. Both the Rottweiler and the German Shepherd Dog are classified as working dogs, but the statistics for each are separate.

    If we were to classify groups of dogs the way the Center for Disease Control did for pit bulls, this is how it should have been:

    Working Group ( Rottweilers, German Shepherd Dogs, Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Great Danes, and Saint Bernards): 106
    Non-Sporting Group (Chow Chow): 8
    Pit Bull Type (American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Presa Canario [not an AKC recognized breed, but was considered Herding], American Bulldog [again, not an AKC recognized breed, but would be considered Herding], American Pit Bull Terrier [despite the name, this would be a Working group if recognized by the AKC], Cane Corso [Working group], Dogo Argentino [AKC unrecognized, but would be considered Sporting], and French Bulldog [Non-Sporting]): 66

    Total: 180 fatal dog bites

    Going by these numbers, the working group totals the highest number of bites. As you might have noticed, there are many groups under the pit bull-type, which, again, results with inconsistencies, because a few of those "pit bull-types" should have been recorded under different groups.

    In short, I don't believe that the statistics can be used to gauge the temperament of any dog, especially when results for said statistics were not properly acquired.

    From a personal perspective, I adopted two pit bulls. For two years, I have observed their behavior, their quirks, their personalities, and their tendencies. Pit bulls have what is called "game," meaning they have very high prey drives. They like to chase smaller animals. I watched this instinct in my two girls as they caught sight of a squirrel, and it was fascinating behavior. People who have never seen this may misconstrue it as "vicious" because it is very intense. Again, this is a generalization, and individual pit bull personalities may vary.

    While I agree that stereotypes for pit bulls is wrong, I would also like to add that not everyone can handle the breed's extreme intelligence and strong instincts. If you are considering the addition of a pit bull into your family, start by fostering one for about a year. In addition to giving you insight into the breed characteristics, you will be saving your local rescue boarding costs. The rescue covers all costs of food, toys, veterinary care, and anything else the dog needs, so all fostering will cost you is time, effort, space, and affection.

    CDC report on dog breeds: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreation...ogbreeds-a.pdf

    Additional note: The CDC specifically states that their report "...does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic" as well as stating "There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreation...revention.html)
    Last edited by ladykrimson; April 23rd, 2012 at 08:40 AM. Reason: Adding Citation
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,202
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    The real issue with pit bulls is some people like to breed them for fighting or as guard dogs creating rather aggressive and vicious animals.

    Then they either get out of control or end up circulating into the home pet population causing trouble and just the image created by these enthusiasts creates fear of the animals.

    If you really want a stronger measure, # of breeds is not useful since breeds have varying popularity. What you want are numbers of attacks vs numbers of animals within a given breed. (but as noted that is not generally available)

    I'm not much for breed bans. I think if an animal proves dangerous to people you put it down, and if an owner has had more than one animal responsible for an attack they should not be allowed a licence to keep an animal in any populated area.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    I know. This has been done so many times, and everyone posts impassioned opinions about whether or not they are vicious animals. Someone has either had experience with pit bulls, whether positive or negative, or has created an opinion based on hearsay and public research.

    I am hoping to dispel some myths and enlighten the uninformed about the nature of the pit bull breeds. I do not seek to discredit any traumatic experiences or to confirm advocates assertions. All I wish to do is to offer some information that I have discovered, and share my interpretations of the breed, based on my own experiences. I truly hope that this post will help people to understand these dogs, because to understand something is to abate the fear.

    First, we must define a pit bull. Understand that the pit bull is not actually a breed of dog; it is an encapsulating term that categorizes several canine breeds, most of which fall into the "molosser" type. According to several sources, the "molosser" canines are large, solidly built dogs with heavy bones; pendant ears (triangle-shaped ears that hang); a short, well-muscled neck; and a short muzzle. The general breeds that are legally considered "pit bulls" are: American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, American Pit Bull, Cane Corso, Presa Canario, Dogo Argentino, and the French Bulldog. That is a lot of breeds rolled into one.

    This leads me to another interesting fact that I have discovered. I did a little digging (my thanks to the CDC for their research publication), and apparently, between 1979 and 1999, there were 180 dog bites resulting in fatalities, 66 of which were attributed to the "pit bull-type." :

    Number of dog-bite fatalities

    Pit bull-type: 66
    Rottweiler: 39
    German Shepherd Dog: 17
    Husky-type: 15
    Malamute: 12
    Doberman Pinscher: 9
    Chow Chow: 8
    Great Dane: 7
    Saint Bernard: 7

    Total: 180

    (I am concentrating on the purebred numbers for now.)

    The number for pit bull types is certainly an alarming number, and none of these fatalities are justified in any way...however, this number encapsulates the nine breeds listed above. Additionally, identification of a "pit bull" type is not always easy. Many dog breeds are misidentified as pit bulls. I searched the rest of the statistics, but this type of classification is sporadic. Both the Rottweiler and the German Shepherd Dog are classified as working dogs, but the statistics for each are separate.

    If we were to classify groups of dogs the way the Center for Disease Control did for pit bulls, this is how it should have been:

    Working Group ( Rottweilers, German Shepherd Dogs, Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Great Danes, and Saint Bernards): 106
    Non-Sporting Group (Chow Chow): 8
    Pit Bull Type (American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Presa Canario [not an AKC recognized breed, but was considered Herding], American Bulldog [again, not an AKC recognized breed, but would be considered Herding], American Pit Bull Terrier [despite the name, this would be a Working group if recognized by the AKC], Cane Corso [Working group], Dogo Argentino [AKC unrecognized, but would be considered Sporting], and French Bulldog [Non-Sporting]): 66

    Total: 180 fatal dog bites

    Going by these numbers, the working group totals the highest number of bites. As you might have noticed, there are many groups under the pit bull-type, which, again, results with inconsistencies, because a few of those "pit bull-types" should have been recorded under different groups.

    In short, I don't believe that the statistics can be used to gauge the temperament of any dog, especially when results for said statistics were not properly acquired.

    From a personal perspective, I adopted two pit bulls. For two years, I have observed their behavior, their quirks, their personalities, and their tendencies. Pit bulls have what is called "game," meaning they have very high prey drives. They like to chase smaller animals. I watched this instinct in my two girls as they caught sight of a squirrel, and it was fascinating behavior. People who have never seen this may misconstrue it as "vicious" because it is very intense. Again, this is a generalization, and individual pit bull personalities may vary.

    While I agree that stereotypes for pit bulls is wrong, I would also like to add that not everyone can handle the breed's extreme intelligence and strong instincts. If you are considering the addition of a pit bull into your family, start by fostering one for about a year. In addition to giving you insight into the breed characteristics, you will be saving your local rescue boarding costs. The rescue covers all costs of food, toys, veterinary care, and anything else the dog needs, so all fostering will cost you is time, effort, space, and affection.

    CDC report on dog breeds: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreation...ogbreeds-a.pdf

    Additional note: The CDC specifically states that their report "...does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic" as well as stating "There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreation...revention.html)
    1) Personal experience is not a suitable measure for any population based analysis, such as risk at a national level, and that is really what we are interested in here. In making laws or assessing risk, you have to look at a population level to truly measure these factors in a statistically meaningful manner and apply laws in a equal and fair manner. Personal experience cannot accurately measure this because it is a biased sample. Your experience could be an outlier, not true of the population as a whole or of any random sample.

    2) Sigfried rightly points out that what matters here is essentially a ratio of the number of attacks to the actual number of dogs. Lets say there are only 66 pitbull-type dogs in the US and 1000 St. Bernards. That would mean a ratio of 1:1 fatalities per pitbull-type versus 0.007:1 St Bernards. Now certainly this is an exaggeration, but it illustrates the fact that how one presents data makes a BIG difference. There is a right way and a wrong way to present statistical data and you can fool people by misrepresenting it. I see this all the time.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  4. #4
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    In addition, your data is almost 25 years old!

    Here is current data: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...fatalities.php

    "In the 3-year period of 2006 to 2008, 18% of all fatal dog attacks occurred off owner property. Pit bulls were responsible for 81% of these attacks." - Report: U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities January 2006 to December 2008 by DogsBite.org, 2010





    Anecdotal "Evidence":
    A friend of my wife was attacked a week and a half ago (in San Diego) by a Pit Bull...while she was walking on the sidewalk near her daughter's home. She has to have reconstructive surgery on her face and hands. She has had at least 6 surgeries already. The dog has been put down.

    The the risk of a hostile personality in pit bulls is just not worth the risk IMO.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Dogs are biological tools, and are bread for specific purposes. Successful breeds are breeds that have achieved their purposes. The mistake people make is thinking that all dogs are the same, and basically using the wrong tool for the wrong job. Now some breeds are bread for look purposes and not so much for attitude purposes.

    So, one can base an opinion against a breed of Dog based on the factors that went into the construction of the breed. This recognizes some of the basic genetic dispositions of dog breeds, which are predictable and a basic part of successful Dog breeding. As one dog breed will be selected for it's attitudinal character traits only, and not for it's physical look or abilities.

    So, for me I don't need to know all the actual statistics to form a dislike for a specific Dog.


    We know a man (who works with my father-in-law) who had a pitbull in his house for many years (family dog). He was a major advocate for Pitbulls and would call people out when they bashed the pitbull breed. His family grew to include a child, and when his little girl was 2-3 years old, he was sitting at his couch watching his child play on the floor, and he watched his family pet (pit bull) look at his child, stare her down for a moment, run across the room and kill his child. There was absolutely nothing he could do about it. I will say that if you spoke to him on the issue he will say that anyone who defends the pit-bull breed is absolutely full of ****.

    So, the problem with pit-bulls is not that they are inherently bad. The problem is that people mis apply what a pit-bull is designed to do, and try to make it something it is not. Treating a loaded gun like it is a hammer is not smart. Neither is treating a dog bread to fight and home defense as a family cuddle bunny.


    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    The American Pit Bull Terrier is the product of interbreeding between terriers and bulldogs to produce a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog.[4] These dogs were initially bred in England and arrived in the United States with the founders. In the United States, these dogs were used as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions.[4] Some have been selectively bred for their fighting prowess.[5][6] The United Kennel Club (UKC) was the first registry to recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier.[7] UKC founder C. Z. Bennett assigned UKC registration number 1 to his own dog, "Bennett's Ring", as an American Pit Bull Terrier in 1898.[4]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

    IMO, the problem is the attitude found in Terrier dogs, which is one of the base breeds that Pit-bulls (AKA "bull-terriers") are composed of.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; April 23rd, 2012 at 05:03 PM.
    To serve man.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    In addition, your data is almost 25 years old!

    Here is current data: http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...fatalities.php

    "In the 3-year period of 2006 to 2008, 18% of all fatal dog attacks occurred off owner property. Pit bulls were responsible for 81% of these attacks." - Report: U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities January 2006 to December 2008 by DogsBite.org, 2010





    Anecdotal "Evidence":
    A friend of my wife was attacked a week and a half ago (in San Diego) by a Pit Bull...while she was walking on the sidewalk near her daughter's home. She has to have reconstructive surgery on her face and hands. She has had at least 6 surgeries already. The dog has been put down.

    The the risk of a hostile personality in pit bulls is just not worth the risk IMO.
    I am very sorry that your wife's friend went through such a traumatic experience. It is truly horrendous when an animal attacks a human, and I do not mean to invalidate anyone's encounter.

    The purpose of my post was to prove these statistics to be ridiculous because the "pit bull type" includes several different breeds of dog. Aside from the "American Pit Bull", there is no such breed as a pit bull.

    My personal opinion is that breed really has nothing to do with animal attacks. Recently, I read a news story where a golden retriever mix mauled a child. Any dog can cause injuries to humans. No dog is "born vicious" or "born to fight." They must be trained that way, or something in the environment created a problem.

    That being said, I do not think the pit bull type is a breed for just anyone. They are intelligent dogs that need exercise and mental stimulation, or they will become problem pets. I think they should be limited to experienced dog owners who can read basic canine body language.

    ---------- Post added at 02:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    1) Personal experience is not a suitable measure for any population based analysis, such as risk at a national level, and that is really what we are interested in here. In making laws or assessing risk, you have to look at a population level to truly measure these factors in a statistically meaningful manner and apply laws in a equal and fair manner. Personal experience cannot accurately measure this because it is a biased sample. Your experience could be an outlier, not true of the population as a whole or of any random sample.
    Point taken, but as it states, it is only my personal opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    2) Sigfried rightly points out that what matters here is essentially a ratio of the number of attacks to the actual number of dogs. Lets say there are only 66 pitbull-type dogs in the US and 1000 St. Bernards. That would mean a ratio of 1:1 fatalities per pitbull-type versus 0.007:1 St Bernards. Now certainly this is an exaggeration, but it illustrates the fact that how one presents data makes a BIG difference. There is a right way and a wrong way to present statistical data and you can fool people by misrepresenting it. I see this all the time.
    I think you might have missed the point. It is not a fair representation to compare a single dog breed with a type of dog that includes nine breeds. The fatalities from "pit bull type" dogs include nine different breeds. Whether it is a ratio or statistical data, the result will not be a true representation.

    ---------- Post added at 02:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Dogs are biological tools, and are bread for specific purposes. Successful breeds are breeds that have achieved their purposes. The mistake people make is thinking that all dogs are the same, and basically using the wrong tool for the wrong job. Now some breeds are bread for look purposes and not so much for attitude purposes.

    So, one can base an opinion against a breed of Dog based on the factors that went into the construction of the breed. This recognizes some of the basic genetic dispositions of dog breeds, which are predictable and a basic part of successful Dog breeding. As one dog breed will be selected for it's attitudinal character traits only, and not for it's physical look or abilities.

    So, for me I don't need to know all the actual statistics to form a dislike for a specific Dog.


    We know a man (who works with my father-in-law) who had a pitbull in his house for many years (family dog). He was a major advocate for Pitbulls and would call people out when they bashed the pitbull breed. His family grew to include a child, and when his little girl was 2-3 years old, he was sitting at his couch watching his child play on the floor, and he watched his family pet (pit bull) look at his child, stare her down for a moment, run across the room and kill his child. There was absolutely nothing he could do about it. I will say that if you spoke to him on the issue he will say that anyone who defends the pit-bull breed is absolutely full of ****.

    So, the problem with pit-bulls is not that they are inherently bad. The problem is that people mis apply what a pit-bull is designed to do, and try to make it something it is not. Treating a loaded gun like it is a hammer is not smart. Neither is treating a dog bread to fight and home defense as a family cuddle bunny.


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

    IMO, the problem is the attitude found in Terrier dogs, which is one of the base breeds that Pit-bulls (AKA "bull-terriers") are composed of.
    Let's start with the use of the label, "pit bull." There are nine breeds of dog that are considered "pit bulls."

    American Staffordshire Terrier : The early ancestors of this breed came from England, where applications included farm use, guarding, dog fighting, and companionship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...dshire_Terrier)
    Staffordshire Bull Terrier : Early Bull and Terriers were not bred for the companion animals of today, but for the characteristic known as gameness, with the pitting of dogs against bear or bull and exotic animals testing this attribute along with the strength and skill of the dog. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier)
    American Bulldog : In Spain and England during the 17th and 18th centuries, bulldogs were used on farms to catch and hold livestock, as butchers' dogs, as guardians, as well as for other tasks. Many settlers brought these dogs with them to help around the farm, hunt in the woods, guard property, and for gambling and sport. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bulldog)
    American Pit Bull Terrier : The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears. When baiting bulls was deemed inhumane, ratting (a sport where a number of rats were placed in a pit for a specified time with the dog) and dog fighting became more popular. The APBT was used in both sports, and its prevalence in being put in pits with rats, or other dogs led to "pit" being added to its name. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier)
    Cane Corso : The Cane Corso is a catch dog used with cattle and swine, and also in wild boar hunts. It is also used by night watchmen, keepers, and, in the past, by carters as a drover. In the more distant past this breed was common all over Italy as an ample iconography and historiography testify.
    Presa Canario : guarding farms, struggling with cattle and the extermination of wild or stray dogs. (http://www.akc.org/breeds/perro_de_p...io/history.cfm)
    Dogo Argentino : In the 1928, Antonio Nores Martinez. a medical doctor, professor and surgeon, set out to breed a big game hunting dog that was also capable of being a loyal pet and guard dog. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogo_Argentino)
    French Bulldog : they have been bred for non-sporting reasons since at least 1800, and so their use changed from a sporting breed to a companion breed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Bulldog

    So, when you say "misapplied what a pit bull is designed to do", it is too broad a statement. The "attitude" in Terriers is actually what is referred to as "gameness." I had the privilege of seeing that "gameness" when my dogs caught sight of a squirrel. It was absolutely amazing.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  7. #7
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    I am very sorry that your wife's friend went through such a traumatic experience. It is truly horrendous when an animal attacks a human, and I do not mean to invalidate anyone's encounter.

    The purpose of my post was to prove these statistics to be ridiculous because the "pit bull type" includes several different breeds of dog. Aside from the "American Pit Bull", there is no such breed as a pit bull.

    My personal opinion is that breed really has nothing to do with animal attacks. Recently, I read a news story where a golden retriever mix mauled a child. Any dog can cause injuries to humans. No dog is "born vicious" or "born to fight." They must be trained that way, or something in the environment created a problem.

    That being said, I do not think the pit bull type is a breed for just anyone. They are intelligent dogs that need exercise and mental stimulation, or they will become problem pets. I think they should be limited to experienced dog owners who can read basic canine body language.
    I understand. But this argument appears to be just a myth, started by pro-Pit Bull advocates. The fact is, Pit Bulls are easily identifiable and their attacks accurately recorded.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I understand. But this argument appears to be just a myth, started by pro-Pit Bull advocates. The fact is, Pit Bulls are easily identifiable and their attacks accurately recorded.
    Could you please tell me what makes my argument "myth-like"? I think it is a sound argument. You cannot lump a bunch of breeds into one type, and then compare that type to a single breed. Even the link provided by MindTrap states:

    "A pit bull is any of several breeds with a similar history, with origins rooted from the bulldog and a variety of terriers."

    In Ohio, the law states that a pit bull is:

    • American Pit Bull Terrier
    • American Staffordshire Terrier
    • Staffordshire Bull Terrier
    • Any other purebred or mixed breed dog whose appearance (looks or physical characteristics) are predominantly like the list of breeds above (or a combination of breeds from the above list)


    I respectfully disagree with your assertion that pit bulls are easily identifiable and provide you with a test. Without searching on the Internet or in any books, pick out the actual pit bull in this image:

    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    I'm already familiar with that "test" (or ones similar to it). And it has been adequately been responded to by a site I linked to above IMO.

    Here it is for convenience: http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-do...bull-myths.php

    Pit bull advocates frequently claim that the average person cannot correctly identify a pit bull. As discussed in the Pit Bull FAQ, the pit bull is a class of dogs made up of several close breeds (See: What is a pit bull type dog?). This false claim is designed to confuse the public just as the pit bull breed's history of changing names is intended to do (See: Disguise breed name). As recently told to us by a top U.S. animal control enforcement officer, "If it looks like a pit bull, it usually is."

    Pit bull advocates have even created deceptive online tests (Find the Pit Bull) to further confuse the media, policymakers and the public. These tests are inaccurate and intentionally crafted to show that the average person could not correctly identify a pit bull. DogsBite.org has created a more realistic test that shows a variety of popular dog breeds. Once one begins to understand the frame, posture and distinct head and jaw size of a pit bull type dog, identification is immediate.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by LADYKRIMSON
    So, when you say "misapplied what a pit bull is designed to do", it is too broad a statement.
    Well, with the exception of the "French Bulldog", not at all.
    I believe your inclusion of the French bulldog to be incorrect. It is not a "pit bull" breed, it is a base breed that one gets a pit-bull.
    You may as well point to a terrier.

    All that said, the real meat and potatoes of my comment has to do that the problem arises when one misapplies what a dog is designed to do. As the term "pit bull" seems to confuse you, use the more general application. If a dog was breed to hunt/fight/protect it is not a good idea to cuddle with it every night and play with 2 year old children. No more than letting your 2 year old play with the family gun.

    Take the "Cane corso", I saw these in action as a pack took down a wild boor that was in excess of 500lbs. Impressive hunting and power indeed, they put Kevlar vests on the dogs so the boar couldn't gore them .. too badly anyway. Am I surprised when such a dog attacks a person? .. Not in the least, and why should I be? On what grounds is anyone surprised by such an act from such a dog? Then to act as though such a suspicion is unjustified is to reveal a special kind of naivety and misunderstanding of the basic nature of dogs in general. That such an attitude comes from dog lovers is ironic to say the least.


    Quote Originally Posted by LADYKRIMSON
    The "attitude" in Terriers is actually what is referred to as "gameness." I had the privilege of seeing that "gameness" when my dogs caught sight of a squirrel. It was absolutely amazing.
    ahh yes, I remember the first time I saw a Dog's "gaminess". I was working at a neighbors house fixing a light, and touch-up painting. He was on his lawnmower as his dog played in the yard. I was walking back to the house, hands full of paint/rollers/drop cloth, when I saw that "gameness" look in the dogs eyes.. He barked a lot, as game dogs do, then bit me on the knee.

    Luckily the dog was a small terrier and lacked the size to do any real damage, a good kick to the head got him off of me, but I had to continue to kick him away as the owner was not aware of what was going on because he was facing away on a riding mower. The dog had a good minute + to attack me without the owner having any idea what so ever.

    So yea, that same "gaminess attitude" has been seen by the many people attacked by the dogs as well and it's all fun and games until it's your 2 year old girl being killed in front of you. Look, call it whatever you like, I agree that it has a purpose a time and a place. My objection is to it's misapplication and misuse as the actual cause of problems. In the instance I was in, it was the owner failing to put his dog on a leash, and ignoring the fact that his dog has bitten before.

    If you want a dog to cuddle, get a dog breed to cuddle. If you want a guard dog, get a dog breed to Guard. If you want both, don't cry and whine that people are being unfair to the breed because that particular dog exhibited too much of the "guard dog" purpose, instead of the "cuddle bunny" purpose you had intended. Insisting that a dog that has deep breeding roots in fighting/guarding/violent hunting (I say violent to draw contrast to what Lab's do) is being wrongly characterized is simply not reasonable and contrary to common sense IMO.



    Easily identifiable

    The idea of identifiability is irrelevant. Suppose you didn't know a gun was "real" and you thought it was a toy. Does that mean if you accidentally shoot someone the fundamental problem isn't the fact that you used a real gun in a way that is contrary to it's designed purpose? (namely treating it like a toy when it is designed as a weapon).

    All dogs are not equal, they are not all the same and are not on similar ground. Each one is a tool designed to do something. If you us a pit-bull as a family pet, you are simply using one of the poorest tools available for that purpose.
    I can shave with a hatchet if I like, or use knives as chop sticks. When an accident occurs people will rightly ask me.. "what in the world were you thinking using the wrong tool for the wrong job?"

    The failure of any Dog lover to recognize this most fundamental aspect of dogs, that they, above all animal kinds, are special breed tools; shows an inherent lack of understanding, respect and appreciation for the truly amazing creatures that they are.
    To serve man.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    On what grounds is anyone surprised by such an act from such a dog?
    Exactly. Its like the people who keep or work with Lions (and Tigers and Bears oh my!) and then end up dead one day. Nobody is surprised. That is the nature of those animals. Just as extreme aggression and violence is the nature of those breeds that were specifically bred for those purposes.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Exactly. Its like the people who keep or work with Lions (and Tigers and Bears oh my!) and then end up dead one day. Nobody is surprised. That is the nature of those animals. Just as extreme aggression and violence is the nature of those breeds that were specifically bred for those purposes.
    Yea, like hearing about Roy being bitten by his lion. When it happened. Everyone thought... "man that took longer than I thought".
    Chimps are really bad for that as well. They reach puberty and then want to rip your arms and legs off.

    What is amazing is that with dogs we have been able to actually select attitude traits. "Science of Dogs" movie was really good and gave me a new appreciation for level at which this was done.

    But the first step in good breeding comes with recognizing that attitude traits are in fact inherent and must be targeted in the breeding process.
    For some reason, that seems to be ignored by Pit-bull owners specifically. Which IMO makes for a basis for fundamentally misunderstanding dogs, and mis-portraying them as well.
    To serve man.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,202
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Ya, I think the picture backfires because my response is... all of them. Which only counters the whole "its a diverse category of dogs" argument. Its not that diverse, they are pretty much all closely related so it makes sense if one has some problem they all do, nor does it seem like we are talking about this huge group of dogs, instead its a narrow band with some different names and lineages.

    For me, the number of attacks from these animals is not so huge as to call some epidemic. Most such dogs you meet will never attack anyone. What is really a bigger problem is lazy/crappy dog owners who let their dogs go uncontrolled or foolish ones who put an aggressive dog in close proximity to vulnerable youth. They just aren't the best choice as a family dog.

    So I'm still not in favor of a breed ban. I could see requiring a license for such animals certainly and some education of what the risks are (without hyperbole one way or another).
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Ya, I think the picture backfires because my response is... all of them. Which only counters the whole "its a diverse category of dogs" argument. Its not that diverse, they are pretty much all closely related so it makes sense if one has some problem they all do, nor does it seem like we are talking about this huge group of dogs, instead its a narrow band with some different names and lineages.

    For me, the number of attacks from these animals is not so huge as to call some epidemic. Most such dogs you meet will never attack anyone. What is really a bigger problem is lazy/crappy dog owners who let their dogs go uncontrolled or foolish ones who put an aggressive dog in close proximity to vulnerable youth. They just aren't the best choice as a family dog.

    So I'm still not in favor of a breed ban. I could see requiring a license for such animals certainly and some education of what the risks are (without hyperbole one way or another).
    I agree that a "breed ban" seems wrong at least at National or State levels. Not sure how I feel at municipal levels.

    But I do not have a problem with licensing. Every state has some law regarding exotic pets and often require licensing to own them, particularly the dangerous ones. Applying this to overly aggressive breeds like Pit Bulls that do pose a real risk seems both an acceptable and reasonable compromise.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I'm already familiar with that "test" (or ones similar to it). And it has been adequately been responded to by a site I linked to above IMO.

    Here it is for convenience: http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-do...bull-myths.php

    Pit bull advocates frequently claim that the average person cannot correctly identify a pit bull. As discussed in the Pit Bull FAQ, the pit bull is a class of dogs made up of several close breeds (See: What is a pit bull type dog?). This false claim is designed to confuse the public just as the pit bull breed's history of changing names is intended to do (See: Disguise breed name). As recently told to us by a top U.S. animal control enforcement officer, "If it looks like a pit bull, it usually is."

    Pit bull advocates have even created deceptive online tests (Find the Pit Bull) to further confuse the media, policymakers and the public. These tests are inaccurate and intentionally crafted to show that the average person could not correctly identify a pit bull. DogsBite.org has created a more realistic test that shows a variety of popular dog breeds. Once one begins to understand the frame, posture and distinct head and jaw size of a pit bull type dog, identification is immediate.
    I see. Is it possible for you to step outside of the dog bite site for a moment? That site is very biased against the pit bull type. The "identify the pit bull" test that I posted is one that I personally created. The point I wish to make with it is that the pit bull is not so easily identified. It is not deceptive in any way. I tried to find pictures that clearly display traits of the specific breed.

    I believe that the opposition presented to my argument here on this board is colored with traumatic personal experience, so let me present the claims for my argument again, and we can go from there.

    1. The CDC dog bite statistics presented do not accurately represent the assertion that pit bulls are vicious. One cannot lump 8 breeds into one type of dog and then compare it to a single breed. You cannot compare a type of dog to a breed of dog. You either compare types to types or breeds to breeds. It's like comparing the bites of all black dogs to the bite of a Dalmatian; it is not a fair or accurate comparison.

    2. It is not always easy to identify a "pit bull type". I tried to provide proof, but it was implied that the test I presented is intended to deceive. Here are some news stories that illustrate the point:

    http://network.bestfriends.org/2045/news.aspx
    http://www.adoa.org/hawaii/hi-dog-th...-as-a-pit-bull
    http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAtt...20attacks.html
    http://www.ohio.com/news/first/anima....ot&s=1.172489
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2544870/posts
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  16. #16
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Good support, ty. But is it the case that we can reason from these few reports that most identifications are false? Or is it the case that these are the exceptions? Also, is it the case that pit bulls are more aggressive as a type? Or is it just a bad rap they have received? If so, why? Why are they singled out over all other dogs?

    You seem to be taking the position that they have been unfairly targeted. Are you saying that they have only been done so because they look like so many breeds or have similar characteristics, that when accounts of hostility are taken collectively, this is the type that gets blamed because they look like so many other breeds? Is it really as simple as that?

    ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

    Also, one of your links does not support your claim (free republic), it says nothing about misidentification.

    Another one of your links shows a black lab. There's an obvious difference between a black lab and a pit bull, most people can tell the difference. This is not an example of "how easy it is to confuse a dog to be a pit bull", it is an example of someone simply having absolutely no clue whatsoever about dogs. Identification of the breed or type can easily be made or corrected by the owner (as it has been done) or by the human society or animal control (when the dog is captured).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, with the exception of the "French Bulldog", not at all.
    I believe your inclusion of the French bulldog to be incorrect. It is not a "pit bull" breed, it is a base breed that one gets a pit-bull.
    You may as well point to a terrier.

    All that said, the real meat and potatoes of my comment has to do that the problem arises when one misapplies what a dog is designed to do. As the term "pit bull" seems to confuse you, use the more general application. If a dog was breed to hunt/fight/protect it is not a good idea to cuddle with it every night and play with 2 year old children. No more than letting your 2 year old play with the family gun.

    Take the "Cane corso", I saw these in action as a pack took down a wild boor that was in excess of 500lbs. Impressive hunting and power indeed, they put Kevlar vests on the dogs so the boar couldn't gore them .. too badly anyway. Am I surprised when such a dog attacks a person? .. Not in the least, and why should I be? On what grounds is anyone surprised by such an act from such a dog? Then to act as though such a suspicion is unjustified is to reveal a special kind of naivety and misunderstanding of the basic nature of dogs in general. That such an attitude comes from dog lovers is ironic to say the least.
    None of these breeds were created to attack people. In fact, the American Staffordshire Terrier used to be known as the "Nursemaid" dog because they are so good with children.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ahh yes, I remember the first time I saw a Dog's "gaminess". I was working at a neighbors house fixing a light, and touch-up painting. He was on his lawnmower as his dog played in the yard. I was walking back to the house, hands full of paint/rollers/drop cloth, when I saw that "gameness" look in the dogs eyes.. He barked a lot, as game dogs do, then bit me on the knee.

    Luckily the dog was a small terrier and lacked the size to do any real damage, a good kick to the head got him off of me, but I had to continue to kick him away as the owner was not aware of what was going on because he was facing away on a riding mower. The dog had a good minute + to attack me without the owner having any idea what so ever.

    So yea, that same "gaminess attitude" has been seen by the many people attacked by the dogs as well and it's all fun and games until it's your 2 year old girl being killed in front of you. Look, call it whatever you like, I agree that it has a purpose a time and a place. My objection is to it's misapplication and misuse as the actual cause of problems. In the instance I was in, it was the owner failing to put his dog on a leash, and ignoring the fact that his dog has bitten before.
    No, that is not "gameness." Some of the terriers have instincts to chase vermin or smaller creatures. There is no backing down from a challenge. That is gameness. Dogs do not bite people to be mean. There is always a reason behind an attack, whether it is being territorial or out of frustration. You said that dog barked a lot. That was most likely that dog's warning to you to back off. Was the dog justified in biting you? Of course not. That dog's owner should have known better and kept him on a leash.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you want a dog to cuddle, get a dog breed to cuddle. If you want a guard dog, get a dog breed to Guard. If you want both, don't cry and whine that people are being unfair to the breed because that particular dog exhibited too much of the "guard dog" purpose, instead of the "cuddle bunny" purpose you had intended. Insisting that a dog that has deep breeding roots in fighting/guarding/violent hunting (I say violent to draw contrast to what Lab's do) is being wrongly characterized is simply not reasonable and contrary to common sense IMO.
    The irony in your statement is that I have two pit bull type dogs. One of them LOVES to snuggle more than a golden retriever. Where is the irony? A black lab bit me in the face, once. It was my own fault. I was younger and under the illusion that all animals loved me (I call it the Snow White Syndrome). I tried to hug the dog, and he snapped at my face. It was simply a warning.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Easily identifiable

    The idea of identifiability is irrelevant. Suppose you didn't know a gun was "real" and you thought it was a toy. Does that mean if you accidentally shoot someone the fundamental problem isn't the fact that you used a real gun in a way that is contrary to it's designed purpose? (namely treating it like a toy when it is designed as a weapon).
    Actually, it is extremely relevant, especially when being used in statistics. Incorrectly identifying the breed or type leads to incorrect results.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All dogs are not equal, they are not all the same and are not on similar ground. Each one is a tool designed to do something. If you us a pit-bull as a family pet, you are simply using one of the poorest tools available for that purpose.
    I can shave with a hatchet if I like, or use knives as chop sticks. When an accident occurs people will rightly ask me.. "what in the world were you thinking using the wrong tool for the wrong job?"

    The failure of any Dog lover to recognize this most fundamental aspect of dogs, that they, above all animal kinds, are special breed tools; shows an inherent lack of understanding, respect and appreciation for the truly amazing creatures that they are.
    I agree with your assertion that all dog breeds are not equal. Not everyone should adopt pit bulls. It is imperative to understand the purpose of the breed because it will help you to understand the behavior. Above all, no dog should be left alone with a child.

    ---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Ya, I think the picture backfires because my response is... all of them. Which only counters the whole "its a diverse category of dogs" argument. Its not that diverse, they are pretty much all closely related so it makes sense if one has some problem they all do, nor does it seem like we are talking about this huge group of dogs, instead its a narrow band with some different names and lineages.

    For me, the number of attacks from these animals is not so huge as to call some epidemic. Most such dogs you meet will never attack anyone. What is really a bigger problem is lazy/crappy dog owners who let their dogs go uncontrolled or foolish ones who put an aggressive dog in close proximity to vulnerable youth. They just aren't the best choice as a family dog.

    So I'm still not in favor of a breed ban. I could see requiring a license for such animals certainly and some education of what the risks are (without hyperbole one way or another).
    I agree with this 100%. In fact, that is my position. Not everyone should be able to own a pit bull. A license is a good idea.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson
    I agree with this 100%. In fact, that is my position. Not everyone should be able to own a pit bull. A license is a good idea.
    If pit bulls are harmless then why shouldn't everyone be able to own one?

    This seems to me a concession then that pit bulls are on average more dangerous than the average dog.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,636
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    ---On Misidentification---

    It does not follow that because I personally can not identify a pit-bull, that a police report would not contain the correct information. Certainly we can assume that a dog owner knows the breed of his dog that just attacked a person.


    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    I believe that the opposition presented to my argument here on this board is colored with traumatic personal experience, so let me present the claims for my argument again, and we can go from there.
    That can only be sustained if the opposition is not offering a valid argument. Certainly personal experience has it's place.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    None of these breeds were created to attack people. In fact, the American Staffordshire Terrier used to be known as the "Nursemaid" dog because they are so good with children.
    I am not sure one can breed a dog to attack a specific animal. What they are breed for is an attitude that is willing to attack another animal, animals much larger than they are in most cases.

    As for names of Dogs, that is nice. "nursemaid" sounds really sweet. Does it change the fact that it has aggressive behavior in the breed? I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    No, that is not "gameness." Some of the terriers have instincts to chase vermin or smaller creatures. There is no backing down from a challenge. That is gameness.
    What is the basis for your distinction? He didn't back down. You are unreasonably limiting IMO that the instinct is to chase "small" creatures.
    As though the dog attacking me wasn't part of his inbreed instinct. He wasn't acting outside of his instincts.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    Dogs do not bite people to be mean. There is always a reason behind an attack, whether it is being territorial or out of frustration.
    No one said they do, in fact if you read my previous responses I specifically said there is nothing wrong with an offensive attitude at all.
    My objection is that it is mis used.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    You said that dog barked a lot. That was most likely that dog's warning to you to back off. Was the dog justified in biting you? Of course not. That dog's owner should have known better and kept him on a leash.
    My example was one of how the owner mis used his dog, and ignored it's breed in nature.
    It is also my person experience with what you have been calling 'gaminess'.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    The irony in your statement is that I have two pit bull type dogs. One of them LOVES to snuggle more than a golden retriever. Where is the irony? A black lab bit me in the face, once. It was my own fault. I was younger and under the illusion that all animals loved me (I call it the Snow White Syndrome). I tried to hug the dog, and he snapped at my face. It was simply a warning.
    First, all dogs bite.
    Second, you haven't actually countered my assertion at all. Just because a lab bit you doesn't mean that a pit doesn't have breed in qualities that make it a "guard dog".
    Also, I don't know the breeding history of the lab, and as that is the basis that I have argued is a reasonable and justified basis for judging a dog, it doesn't counter my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    Actually, it is extremely relevant, especially when being used in statistics. Incorrectly identifying the breed or type leads to incorrect results.
    As above, you may have a point for the average passerby, but once a police report is filled out, I don't believe your position holds watter.
    Why should I assume the owner doesn't know? Certainly they would be asked by police.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    I agree with your assertion that all dog breeds are not equal. Not everyone should adopt pit bulls. It is imperative to understand the purpose of the breed because it will help you to understand the behavior. Above all, no dog should be left alone with a child.
    Do you agree that breeding history is a valid basis to form an opinion or even laws regarding dogs?
    Do you agree that Pit-bull have a history of being breed for violence?
    To serve man.

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    80
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Pit Bull Fallacy

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Good support, ty. But is it the case that we can reason from these few reports that most identifications are false? Or is it the case that these are the exceptions? Also, is it the case that pit bulls are more aggressive as a type? Or is it just a bad rap they have received? If so, why? Why are they singled out over all other dogs?
    I believe that they are singled out because they are frequently used for illegal dog fighting. In the 80's, the big bad breed was the Doberman Pincer. In the 90's, it was the Rottweiler. Now it is the pit bull type. The questions you pose are currently being researched. To answer them, we must learn to interpret dog communication.

    I do not think that false identification accounts for all or even most of the bite statistics, but I do believe it is a contributing factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    You seem to be taking the position that they have been unfairly targeted. Are you saying that they have only been done so because they look like so many breeds or have similar characteristics, that when accounts of hostility are taken collectively, this is the type that gets blamed because they look like so many other breeds? Is it really as simple as that?
    No, not at all. As I have previously stated, I believe that not everyone should be allowed to own a pit bull. I am trying to say that you cannot compare a type of dog (containing 8 separate breeds) to one breed of dog (i.e. Rottweiler, Doberman, etc.) The statistics should separate the breeds of the pit bull type and then compare those to other breeds.

    Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not preaching that pit bull types are sweet, harmless animals and can be treated just like a golden retriever. That would be foolish. I am simply stating that the statistics have misrepresented the "overwhelming" number of bites from a type. If I lump 8 breeds together, it will add up to a lot of dog bites.



    ---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Also, one of your links does not support your claim (free republic), it says nothing about misidentification.

    Another one of your links shows a black lab. There's an obvious difference between a black lab and a pit bull, most people can tell the difference. This is not an example of "how easy it is to confuse a dog to be a pit bull", it is an example of someone simply having absolutely no clue whatsoever about dogs. Identification of the breed or type can easily be made or corrected by the owner (as it has been done) or by the human society or animal control (when the dog is captured).
    And yet, the dog expert (the Akron dog warden) identified the black lab as a pit bull. It happens frequently. A neighbor of mine went out and bought what he thought was a pit bull, but it turned out to be a lab/boxer mix.

    Sorry about the republic link. It was one of the comments.

    ---------- Post added at 01:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    If pit bulls are harmless then why shouldn't everyone be able to own one?

    This seems to me a concession then that pit bulls are on average more dangerous than the average dog.
    If it were up to me, getting any dog would require a license. Every dog has the potential to harm humans. If you don't know anything about the breed of your dog, you will have trouble understanding the behavior.

    Pit Bull types are more intelligent and tenacious than some other breeds. If they are not exercised and mentally stimulated, they get bored and frustrated. Pit bull owners should be aware of the "gameness" and intense prey drive. It can be difficult to handle depending on the individual dog.

    ---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ---On Misidentification---

    It does not follow that because I personally can not identify a pit-bull, that a police report would not contain the correct information. Certainly we can assume that a dog owner knows the breed of his dog that just attacked a person.
    Sometimes, the owner cannot be found, or the owner may mistakenly think he or she has a pit bull when, in fact, they do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That can only be sustained if the opposition is not offering a valid argument. Certainly personal experience has it's place.
    Conceded. It was only an opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not sure one can breed a dog to attack a specific animal. What they are breed for is an attitude that is willing to attack another animal, animals much larger than they are in most cases.

    As for names of Dogs, that is nice. "nursemaid" sounds really sweet. Does it change the fact that it has aggressive behavior in the breed? I don't think so.
    You cannot breed aggression into a dog. These animals have instincts to chase. That is not aggression.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is the basis for your distinction? He didn't back down. You are unreasonably limiting IMO that the instinct is to chase "small" creatures.
    As though the dog attacking me wasn't part of his inbreed instinct. He wasn't acting outside of his instincts.
    You have a point. It sounds like he was attacking either from a territorial instinct or fear (you said your hands were full of stuff. It might have been a bit intimidating. My own dog cowers when I take out the garbage.). Gameness, however, should not be confused with aggression. The two are very different.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No one said they do, in fact if you read my previous responses I specifically said there is nothing wrong with an offensive attitude at all.
    My objection is that it is mis used.
    My example was one of how the owner mis used his dog, and ignored it's breed in nature.
    It is also my person experience with what you have been calling 'gaminess'.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, all dogs bite.
    This is too vague a statement. Do you mean all dogs bite humans?.....all dogs bite humans, things, food, etc? If you state that all dogs bite humans, do you mean that all dogs bite humans with an intent to do harm or to cause injury?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, you haven't actually countered my assertion at all. Just because a lab bit you doesn't mean that a pit doesn't have breed in qualities that make it a "guard dog".
    Any dog has qualities that make it a guard dog.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, I don't know the breeding history of the lab, and as that is the basis that I have argued is a reasonable and justified basis for judging a dog, it doesn't counter my point.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As above, you may have a point for the average passerby, but once a police report is filled out, I don't believe your position holds watter.
    Why should I assume the owner doesn't know? Certainly they would be asked by police.
    See my above answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you agree that breeding history is a valid basis to form an opinion or even laws regarding dogs?
    Partially. It is always a good idea to know the history of your dog's breed to better understand the behavior; however, that should not be the sole basis for opinions or laws regarding dogs.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you agree that Pit-bull have a history of being breed for violence?
    Many dog breeds have that history, but it is not the dogs that choose to commit violence. It was humans who trained them. None of them, however, were bred for violence towards humans.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Pit Bull Blues
    By Scarlett44 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 8th, 2009, 08:41 AM
  2. Pit Bulls And Kids
    By Scarlett44 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 1st, 2008, 01:27 PM
  3. Oh, this is bull****
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: October 31st, 2007, 09:23 PM
  4. Bull Comparisons
    By daman in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 2007, 09:07 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •