Pit Bulls?

[BANRYU]

I got into a bit of a Facebook war with a guy over whether or not pitbulls as a breed should be banned/genocided/etc.

Personally, I am firmly on the side of the debate that says that Pit Bulls' dangerous behavior can be solely attributed to people, whether this means criminal behavior and intentionally breeding the dogs for violence, or irresponsible pet owners that don't instill a proper amount of discipline in what is admittedly a potentially-dangerous breed.

As I'm looking up sources online to try to argue my point, I consistently run into this site called 'dogsbite.org' which is very vehement about opposing claims that pit bulls are dangerous and that their behavior cannot be predicted. I'm finding it a little suspect, since a lot of the articles seem to highly pander to the pitiable emotional side of events, such as the losses of the family, rather than going into detail on how the attacks took place or what caused it. (Here's an example; be warned, the depictions within are rather graphic if that sort of thing disturbs you.) All these articles very aggressively (for lack of a better word) 'dehumanize' the dogs without going into much detail on the causes and whatnot.

Adding to my reluctance to trust this site is that the majority of evidence and studies on the dogs by actual experts like Cesar Millan seem to contradict the unprovoked aggression that this site claims pit bulls have.

I'm honestly not completely sure what to think here. By no way do I want to devalue the deaths that came from pit bull attacks, and yet I find it hard to believe that pit bull aggression against humans can result from anything other than a neglectful upbringing (which can happen if a well-intentioned owner isn't aware of specific needs and behaviors of the breed) or deliberate training for aggression against humans.

Here are some other article links on the subject that feel a lot more objective in addressing these concerns:

- http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspca.org%2Fpet-care%2Fvirtual-pet-behaviorist%2Fdog-behavior%2Ftruth-about-pit-bulls&h=SAQHBl6I2

- http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus56depaullrev1285.htm

- http://www.cesarsway.com/dogbehavior/basics/How-Did-Pit-Bulls-Get-a-Bad-Rap

Edited April 16, 2014 by BANRYU

[Nobody]

I think if people want pitbulls, they should be allowed to have them, with the right measures.

It's a breed known for violent and unpredictable behavior, so the dog shouldn't be allowed to roam freely, without a leach or a muzzle, for example. Yeah, the dog might be docile to its owner (they usually are) but you never know how it will act next to a stranger or other dogs. Still, banning it, seems like too much. And as you said, the owner is indeed responsible for most of the animal's behavior. Still, a bite from a pitbull can be fatal, and letting them walk without muzzles, or unleashed (and I've seen people walking with unleashed pitbulls before) should be forbidden.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[BANRYU]

See though that's what I'm saying-- they're KNOWN for violent and unpredictable behavior, but is that accurate?

I haven't found any evidence that it is.

I absolutely don't agree about the the muzzle thing. Pit bulls are highly unlikely to bite people unless prompted to do so, either through training by criminal individuals or through excessive goading-- same as any other dog. It IS true that pit bulls can be aggressive if improperly trained, and can be highly excitable in certain situations (and consequently difficult to control due to how strong they are), but same as any other dog, there is always an attributable cause to their attacks.

At least, that's what the (credible) sources I'm finding suggest.

[Cowboy Karimov]

I think if people want pitbulls, they should be allowed to have them, with the right measures.

It's a breed known for violent and unpredictable behavior, so the dog shouldn't be allowed to roam freely, without a leach or a muzzle, for example. Yeah, the dog might be docile to its owner (they usually are) but you never know how it will act next to a stranger or other dogs. Still, banning it, seems like too much. And as you said, the owner is indeed responsible for most of the animal's behavior. Still, a bite from a pitbull can be fatal, and letting them walk without muzzles, or unleashed (and I've seen people walking with unleashed pitbulls before) should be forbidden.

The thing is that if your forcing one dog breed to wear a muzzle in public, then why aren't the others? With this law enforced, the pit bull would drastically decrease in popularity, and capitalism wouldn't allow that to happen. Both left and right-wing politicians(although leaning more towards right) would criticize the law, and thus not allow it to pass.

[Caster]

I think if people want pitbulls, they should be allowed to have them, with the right measures.

It's a breed known for violent and unpredictable behavior, so the dog shouldn't be allowed to roam freely, without a leach or a muzzle, for example. Yeah, the dog might be docile to its owner (they usually are) but you never know how it will act next to a stranger or other dogs. Still, banning it, seems like too much. And as you said, the owner is indeed responsible for most of the animal's behavior. Still, a bite from a pitbull can be fatal, and letting them walk without muzzles, or unleashed (and I've seen people walking with unleashed pitbulls before) should be forbidden.

I think walking most dogs unleashed, is really fucking dumb for one reason or another.

It's a learnt trait. I own pitbulls, and I can say I literally have never had a problem with "unpredictable behavior" ever.

If you train them to fucking rip people apart, of course they're going to rip people apart.

Unless you train them to do so, they won't.

I'm not going to muzzle my fucking dog.

[Nobody]

See though that's what I'm saying-- they're KNOWN for violent and unpredictable behavior, but is that accurate?

I haven't found any evidence that it is.

I absolutely don't agree about the the muzzle thing. Pit bulls are highly unlikely to bite people unless prompted to do so, either through training by criminal individuals or through excessive goading-- same as any other dog. It IS true that pit bulls can be aggressive if improperly trained, and can be highly excitable in certain situations (and consequently difficult to control due to how strong they are), but same as any other dog, there is always an attributable cause to their attacks.

At least, that's what the (credible) sources I'm finding suggest.

The thing is that if your forcing one dog breed to wear a muzzle in public, then why aren't the others? With this law enforced, the pit bull would drastically decrease in popularity, and capitalism wouldn't allow that to happen. Both left and right-wing politicians(although leaning more towards right) would criticize the law, and thus not allow it to pass.

Well, I don't have any source, but it's a fact that a pitbull bite can kill, and if it's willing to attack someone, I doubt the owner would be able to hold its leach, since it's a very strong breed.

I've seen many news about pitbulls going out of control and killing people, specially children, but that's anecdotal evidence and doesn't matter.

I think walking most dogs unleashed, is really fucking dumb for one reason or another.

It's a learnt trait. I own pitbulls, and I can say I literally have never had a problem with "unpredictable behavior" ever.

If you train them to fucking rip people apart, of course they're going to rip people apart.

Unless you train them to do so, they won't.

I'm not going to muzzle my fucking dog.

Well, I agree that any dog should be leashed. I'm just too shocked about pitbull attacks so that's why I suggested the muzzles. Maybe it's not right? What I fear is that pitbulls are really strong dogs. I doubt anyone could hold them if it went berserk. I'd never walk my small dog near a pitbull, even if leashed, that's for sure.

And dogs are irrational animals. Even if you train them the best possible way, there's a small odd it could attack someone. I don't doubt people when they say their pitbulls are very docile and properly trained. The problem is that, just like any irrational animal, it could attack someone for apparently no reason at all (there might be a reason, like a brusque movement, or someone doing something that bothered the dog). And a pitbull attack can be fatal. We all know how some kids act next to dogs. What if a small child see a pitbull, and go run towards it. The dog might attack, which is explainable, since the child is a stranger treatening the dog. If the dog react, which might happen even if the dog was really well trained (and that's true for any dog), a fatality will happen.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[BANRYU]

If you have a pitbull that wants to attack people with the intent of injuring or killing them, chances are the dog doesn't have an owner that would WANT to hold its leash-- the only instance I can think of that happening is a rescue dog that was trained to be an attack dog or something.

Sure, you've heard news about it, but the news media is shit, it'll latch onto any story it thinks will get attention. The facts and evidence about behavior are far more important than misinformed rumors-- or even zealously opinionated accounts of the attacks.

Edited April 16, 2014 by BANRYU

[Rehab]

I've seen tons of people claim that their pitbulls wouldn't hurt a fly, and prior to this topic I hadn't heard that there was any real reason to believe otherwise, discounting some blown-up incidents and scare tactics. Is there actually a solid body of evidence that pitbulls are anything other than a normal (if specifically human-bred) breed of dog that happens to have physical traits specialized for fighting?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Rehab

[Cowboy Karimov]

I've seen tons of people claim that their pitbulls wouldn't hurt a fly., and prior to this topic I hadn't heard that there was any real reason to believe otherwise, discounting some blown-up incidents and scare tactics. Is there actually a solid body of evidence that pitbulls are anything other than a normal (if specifically human-bred) breed of dog that happens to have physical traits specialized for fighting?

Shar Pei were bred for fighting(I think), and no one acknowledges them.

[Nobody]

If you have a pitbull that wants to attack people with the intent of injuring or killing them, chances are the dog doesn't have an owner that would WANT to hold its leash-- the only instance I can think of that happening is a rescue dog that was trained to be an attack dog or something.

Sure, you've heard news about it, but the news media is shit, it'll latch onto any story it thinks will get attention. The facts and evidence about behavior are far more important than misinformed rumors-- or even zealously opinionated accounts of the attacks.

Dogs are irrational animals. Many times they act out of instinct, even if they're trained the best possible way. What if you're walking a pitbull and someone, by mistake, step on its tail? The pitbull might attack that person, even if they're trained. Even if there isn't a difference between the way pitbulls and other dogs act, I think its overwhelming strength is a reason to force the owners to have special measures. Maybe not muzzles, but something to make sure the pitbull won't hurt anyone, no matter what.

Shar Pei were bred for fighting(I think), and no one acknowledges them.

Look at the size of a shar pei. Now look at the size of a pitbull. Imagine getting bitten by a shar pei. Now imagine getting bitten by a pitbull. What make pitbull "special" is their physical strength, rather than the way they act.

Just to remember that I don't think pitbulls should be banned. I just think their owners should be forced to take special measures to make sure the dog won't attack anyone ever.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[BANRYU]

I personally have never seen any evidence to suggest that pit bulls are any more aggressive than other aggressive dog breeds like rottweilers and german shepherds.

Here in California my GF points people walking happily with their pit bulls all the time. My next-door neighbor's daughter has a pit bull, and while he's not particularly friendly toward me, by all accounts he's a very good dog. My closest experience with a pit was my girlfriend's parents' dog Chomper (perhaps not the best-named dog to get my point across lol but there it is). I was understandably terrified to meet him, but the family advised me on how to greet him and whatnot, and yeah, he was scary and growled at me a lot and stuff at first (a reasonable reaction when you consider his standpoint: he, the guard dog, doesn't know me; and as far as he's concerned I'm an intruder in his household so of course he doesn't trust me).

BUt, after the first few days of being around the terrifyingly-large dog and earning his trust I now know what a big softie he is. I CAN also say that he is highly rambunctious (which can be scary) and DOES have aggressive tendencies toward other dogs from time to time, but I have absolutely no fear of being injured by him in any fashion other than trampling lol. Aggression toward dogs and aggression toward people are completely different in the mind of a dog.

I've seen tons of people claim that their pitbulls wouldn't hurt a fly, and prior to this topic I hadn't heard that there was any real reason to believe otherwise, discounting some blown-up incidents and scare tactics. Is there actually a solid body of evidence that pitbulls are anything other than a normal (if specifically human-bred) breed of dog that happens to have physical traits specialized for fighting?

This site would have everybody believe so; it's one of the top sites that comes up on google whenever I google anything about the recorded evidence of pit bull attacks and whatnot. I do have some doubts about its credibility, however.

Dogs are irrational animals. Many times they act out of instinct, even if they're trained the best possible way. What if you're walking a pitbull and someone, by mistake, step on its tail? The pitbull might attack that person, even if they're trained. Even if there isn't a difference between the way pitbulls and other dogs act, I think its overwhelming strength is a reason to force the owners to have special measures. Maybe not muzzles, but something to make sure the pitbull won't hurt anyone, no matter what.

Spoken like someone who doesn't own animals or understand animal psychology at all. I'm sorry to keep dismissing your points like this, but it honestly doesn't seem like you have much knowledge on the topic.

Edited April 16, 2014 by BANRYU

[Nobody]

Spoken like someone who doesn't own animals or understand animal psychology at all. I'm sorry to keep dismissing your points like this, but it honestly doesn't seem like you have much knowledge on the topic.

I have a dog, that was properly trained. It's a fact that any dog can attack if they do feel threatened, they can act instinctively, just like any other animal. Are you denying that if someone by mistake step on a dog's tail, that dog might attack that person, even if properly trained?

If you understand so much about animal behaviors, then show me a link of the study saying a properly trained dog won't ever attack anyone.

I personally have never seen any evidence to suggest that pit bulls are any more aggressive than other aggressive dog breeds like rottweilers and german shepherds.

It's not about being more aggressive. It's about the strength of its bite

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[Loki Laufeyson]

Pits have a fucking bite force that is kind of ridiculous, on top of lockjaw. These guys were bred to fight and every dog fighting ring is full of these beasts. They arent aggressive by nature, but they are strong as everliving fuck and this is why when they get aggressive, its so damn scary. A Pitbull is going to fuck your shit up much more than something like a St Bernard. Despite the latter being HUGE, the Pit is built for destruction. St Bernards arent seen as bad dogs cuz...people dont use em for fighting. We will ignore Cujo for now..shhhhh...

It does boil down to bad dog ownership. You know how you see a lot of yipping and irritating chihuahuas and they are all barking and trying to nip at shit? This is the same freaking behavior Pits get put down for. The difference is that a chihuahua isnt going to take off your bloody arm. The pit is gonna nom on your dome. So if you are a bad owner and dont socialize or discipline your dog properly, and you own a pit, bad shit happens. Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rottweilers...these are also breeds built for kicking something's ass. And if they are in the hands of a crappy human, they will do a lot of damage. Pits get a worse wrap for being "ghetto" dogs. Seriously, those guys are everywhere in ghettos.

Ive met some sweet pits in my time. Im not overly fond of them but its an aesthetic reason (i like roly polys like corgis, the droopys like hounds and labs, and the spitz looks.) more than fear. Im not afraid of a pit. Im afraid of a pit bull with a shit owner.

[LuxSpes]

Pits have a fucking bite force that is kind of ridiculous, on top of lockjaw. These guys were bred to fight and every dog fighting ring is full of these beasts. They arent aggressive by nature, but they are strong as everliving fuck and this is why when they get aggressive, its so damn scary. A Pitbull is going to fuck your shit up much more than something like a St Bernard. Despite the latter being HUGE, the Pit is built for destruction. St Bernards arent seen as bad dogs cuz...people dont use em for fighting. We will ignore Cujo for now..shhhhh...

It does boil down to bad dog ownership. You know how you see a lot of yipping and irritating chihuahuas and they are all barking and trying to nip at shit? This is the same freaking behavior Pits get put down for. The difference is that a chihuahua isnt going to take off your bloody arm. The pit is gonna nom on your dome. So if you are a bad owner and dont socialize or discipline your dog properly, and you own a pit, bad shit happens. Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rottweilers...these are also breeds built for kicking something's ass. And if they are in the hands of a crappy human, they will do a lot of damage. Pits get a worse wrap for being "ghetto" dogs. Seriously, those guys are everywhere in ghettos.

Ive met some sweet pits in my time. Im not overly fond of them but its an aesthetic reason (i like roly polys like corgis, the droopys like hounds and labs, and the spitz looks.) more than fear. Im not afraid of a pit. Im afraid of a pit bull with a shit owner.

The locking jaw is a myth as is the monstrous bite force.

As for the breeding, pitbulls were made to be catch-dog(similar to other terriers) as well as family companion. In the 19th century, they were not recommended as guard dogs because of their friendly disposition, even with strangers. Also, 86% of canine fatal attacks involve unneutered males.

On the human side, records by the American Humane Society have found that the majority of owners of vicious dogs(regardless of breed) had more criminal behaviors than other dog owners as well as primary psychopathy.

This is the gist of the info that I got out of the first page of this 5 pages long article, which confirms a lot of things I heard about pitbulls(from a veterinarian-in-training friend and other sources).

[Nobody]

BTW, you keep asking about evidence that pitbulls are more likely to be involved in attacks. Here it is the evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/88/1/55.abstract

93% of the attacks involving pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% of the attacks involving other breeds.

http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2011&issue=04000&article=00023&type=abstract

This one shows pitbull attacks are more fatal.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=08000&article=00028&type=abstract

This one shows that half the attacks were caused by pitbulls.

Why 94% of the pit bulls attacked while unprovocked, compared to 43% of the other dogs? Can that be explained only by the way they were treated by the owner? What would make pit bulls so much more likely to have bad owners than other dogs, then?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Nobody

[BANRYU]

I have a dog, that was properly trained. It's a fact that any dog can attack if they do feel threatened, they can act instinctively, just like any other animal. Are you denying that if someone by mistake step on a dog's tail, that dog might attack that person, even if properly trained?

If you understand so much about animal behaviors, then show me a link of the study saying a properly trained dog won't ever attack anyone.

It's not about being more aggressive. It's about the strength of its bite

Allright first of all I apologize for jumping to conclusions, that was a bit overly judgmental and uncalled for.

As for the example you gave of stepping on the dog's tail? I'd say it depends on the individual temperament and personality of the dog, just like with any person. Some might get mad at you, if they're excessively grumpy or perhaps even spoiled, but others might just as easily be legitimately sad, hurt, and upset with the culprit (and this is true of all individuals of all breeds). Dogs might not be self-aware and capable of complex thought or true remorse, but it doesn't mean that they don't have a degree of sentience and emotions and whatnot. Saying that any dog will attack when hurt is trivializing the real issue.

Anyway yes, of course a dog will attack if it feels threatened, just like any other animal. Self-preservation instinct is perfectly natural. The question here is why would a pit bull feel threatened enough by a human in order to be provoked into attacking? (hypothetical question, don't bother answering, I talk about it below)

Pits have a fucking bite force that is kind of ridiculous, on top of lockjaw. These guys were bred to fight and every dog fighting ring is full of these beasts. They arent aggressive by nature, but they are strong as everliving fuck and this is why when they get aggressive, its so damn scary. A Pitbull is going to fuck your shit up much more than something like a St Bernard. Despite the latter being HUGE, the Pit is built for destruction. St Bernards arent seen as bad dogs cuz...people dont use em for fighting. We will ignore Cujo for now..shhhhh...

It does boil down to bad dog ownership. You know how you see a lot of yipping and irritating chihuahuas and they are all barking and trying to nip at shit? This is the same freaking behavior Pits get put down for. The difference is that a chihuahua isnt going to take off your bloody arm. The pit is gonna nom on your dome. So if you are a bad owner and dont socialize or discipline your dog properly, and you own a pit, bad shit happens. Dobermans, German Shepherds, Rottweilers...these are also breeds built for kicking something's ass. And if they are in the hands of a crappy human, they will do a lot of damage. Pits get a worse wrap for being "ghetto" dogs. Seriously, those guys are everywhere in ghettos.

Ive met some sweet pits in my time. Im not overly fond of them but its an aesthetic reason (i like roly polys like corgis, the droopys like hounds and labs, and the spitz looks.) more than fear. Im not afraid of a pit. Im afraid of a pit bull with a shit owner.

The locking jaw is a myth as is the monstrous bite force.

As for the breeding, pitbulls were made to be catch-dog(similar to other terriers) as well as family companion. In the 19th century, they were not recommended as guard dogs because of their friendly disposition, even with strangers. Also, 86% of canine fatal attacks involve unneutered males.

On the human side, records by the American Humane Society have found that the majority of owners of vicious dogs(regardless of breed) had more criminal behaviors than other dog owners as well as primary psychopathy.

This is the gist of the info that I got out of the first page of this 5 pages long article, which confirms a lot of things I heard about pitbulls(from a veterinarian-in-training friend and other sources).

...well... actually... It IS true that pits have a very strong bite... I wasn't able to find any consistent information regarding the whole lockjaw thing, but my waifu gave me some accounts about her family's pit and his biting habits, and she attested that he sometimes has difficulty letting go of something he's biting; whether it's because instinct tells him to or he actually has physical difficulty with it, I can't really say. I feel inclined to say instinct, though, for reasons stated below.

I DID learn that the reason they were bred for the jaws, though, isn't so much dogfighting as bull-baiting (thus the name). When you're breeding a dog that has to deal with a huge, muscular, mean-as-shit bovine, of course they're going to need to be strong and have powerful jaws to hang onto the bull's nose ring and keep it still. Pits didn't start being bred for dogfighting until around the 80's, IIRC-- I think that was when illegal dogfighting and all that biz started happening, and of course pits are idea for that because they're much less likely to back down, being more likely to bite and hold on (unlike most dogs, which typically have a bite-and-retreat strategy that aims to avoid as much injury as possible).

@ the chihuahas yeah though seriously, a LOT of chihuahuas are mean little bitches, and usually of a far worse temperament, but of course no one wants to put them down bcuz look they're tiny (doesn't mean they can't be threatening at times).

And yeah, personally, I am not a huge fan of pit bulls as far as a dog I'd like to own goes either. I'm not gonna pretend that they can't be a pain in the same ways that other overly-excitable big dogs are, that doesn't really appeal to me either. I just don't see reason to discriminate against them for reasons that are fundamentally true for all aggressive dogs.

BTW, you keep asking about evidence that pitbulls are more likely to be involved in attacks. Here it is the evidence:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/88/1/55.abstract

93% of the attacks involving pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% of the attacks involving other breeds.

http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2011&issue=04000&article=00023&type=abstract

This one shows pitbull attacks are more fatal.

http://journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=08000&article=00028&type=abstract

This one shows that half the attacks were caused by pitbulls.

Why 94% of the pit bulls attacked while unprovocked, compared to 43% of the other dogs? Can that be explained only by the way they were treated by the owner? What would make pit bulls so much more likely to have bad owners than other dogs, then?

The problem I have with statistics like these is that, as I discovered via research and other findings, statistics and widespread fear of specific dog breeds like this are a fad. According to this, before it was pit bulls in the 80s, it was rottweilers, and before them it was great danes, and before them, german shepherds.

What confuses me is just that I don't understand what reason a dog would have to attack a human, much less a child. Pits aren't bred with the kind of predatory instinct that compels them to target weak and helpless prey; quite the opposite (I think I mentioned the whole 'nanny dog' thing already). No dog will ever attack for no reason; there is always a behavioral explanation for it. In some ways, dogs like german shepherds and rottweilers are a little scarier because animal behaviorists still aren't completely sure what triggers their seemingly-random bouts of aggression. (Not that I'm trying to throw germans and rotties under the bus; they're fine dogs as well.)

Ergo, I can't help but assume that articles and statistics like these are designed to generate anything but the overrated panic that the American news media is so skilled at generating.

According to my waifu (who really knows her shit when it comes to animals), most pit bull attacks on people result from the pit attacking a person's dog, and the owner naturally tries to get in the way to defend it.

When dogfighting rings are broken up, some of the fighters don't get caught, and instead put their dogs up for adoption or sell them to puppy mills, where the aggressive behavior unintentionally gets passed to the pups. The scary thing is that you never know when you'll get one of these dogs, because they'll be sweet and friendly and lovable with you, your kids, your cat, your ferret, your bird-- but god forbid when a pit like this sees another dog, they turn into a horrible snarling vicious demon.

But again-- the important thing to take away from this is that pits that attack are BRED and RAISED for that aggression-- it's not a naturally-occurring trait specific to the breed.

Edited April 16, 2014 by BANRYU

[jiodi]

I mean, the raw stats might say pit bulls attack unprovoked more than other dogs, but how does the ratio of shit-ass dog owners stack up to it? If you take a pool of responsible dog trainers and check the amount of unprovoked attacks does that change the statistics at all?

Also considering the difference between a pit bull's ability to do damage and a smaller dog's it's hard to use these statistics on dog nature when I doubt people are reporting that a Bichone Frise or a Poodle attacked them.

[BANRYU]

^ That's another part of it-- a large amount of attacks by other dogs go unreported as well.

I've got plenty of pit bull stories to share from my waifu about Chomper as well. She was telling me about several instances where he could have fucked up smaller dogs or kids real bad, but didn't end up hurting them at all. (Then again even she admitted that he could be a mean mofo depending on the situation... apparently he's killed a morbid amount of woodchucks)

In Chomper's case, he IS particularly mean toward other dogs, but according to the waifu it's because her dad hated other dogs coming around and shitting in his yard (her dad is ex-military and kind of a grump himself). In other words, it's a learned behavior for him to be aggressive with them as well.

It doesn't mean he's aggressive with ALL dogs either; apparently a little pack of chihuahuas came into their yard and were harassing Chomper, and he was being a big baby and not doing a darn thing about it. It sounds pretty funny actually.

I think my favorite story was one where some dumb kid, like 7 or something, was riding his bike by their yard and Chomper took off after the kid, had the kid's leg in his mouth and was snarling horribly, just scaring the living christ out of the kid. A few minutes later, the kid's dad came by and said he was fine-- Chomper was scaring the kid but hadn't actually closed his jaws on the kid's leg (was soaked in slobber though lol).

But you don't hear stories about situations where pitties were responsible with all that muscle mass and bite force they're packin', noooope just the bad stuff

Edited April 17, 2014 by BANRYU

[Chiki]

I think walking most dogs unleashed, is really fucking dumb for one reason or another.

It's a learnt trait. I own pitbulls, and I can say I literally have never had a problem with "unpredictable behavior" ever.

If you train them to fucking rip people apart, of course they're going to rip people apart.

Unless you train them to do so, they won't.

I'm not going to muzzle my fucking dog.

It's not that simple. Different kinds of dogs have different innate personalities. Golden retrievers were bred to have certain innate characteristics, like being gentle and loyal. Pitbulls are vicious and probably should be banned.

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

I looked at the most recent ones and it's mostly pit bulls that are involved. So yeah, they need to be banned.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Rehab]

I wonder exactly how many studies say the same thing about pit bulls. Even one study with numbers as high as 90+% unprovoked would be cause to look at them seriously, but if it's just one study, I'm not sure it'd be enough to convince me that they immediately need to be seized by the government and euthanized, which I think I've heard is something that has gotten people arrested for not complying with?

One counterargument I've heard is that all dogs can bite unprovoked, and that even small dog attacks can be fatal to children. The same people I heard made that argument claimed that pit bulls can be socialized with other dogs, people and children at a young age to minimize the likelihood that they'll attack, just the same as any other breed, it's just extra-important for them.

[BANRYU]

It's not that simple. Different kinds of dogs have different innate personalities. Golden retrievers were bred to have certain innate characteristics, like being gentle and loyal. Pitbulls are vicious and probably should be banned.

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

I looked at the most recent ones and it's mostly pit bulls that are involved. So yeah, they need to be banned.

Please read everything else in this thread and realize what an incredibly narrow-minded and short-sighted perspective this is.

One counterargument I've heard is that all dogs can bite unprovoked, and that even small dog attacks can be fatal to children. The same people I heard made that argument claimed that pit bulls can be socialized with other dogs, people and children at a young age to minimize the likelihood that they'll attack, just the same as any other breed, it's just extra-important for them.

This is absolutely true. I'm not going to pretend that pits can't be dangerous, but socialization with other dogs is probably one of the best preventative measures.

Edited April 17, 2014 by BANRYU

[Chiki]

Please read everything else in this thread and realize what an incredibly narrow-minded and short-sighted perspective this is.

I did. Anecdotes and empirically unverified statements mean nothing to me.

Most deaths in the US are a result of pit bulls. They need to be banned, period.

[BANRYU]

I did. Anecdotes and empirically unverified statements mean nothing to me.

...All right. That's reasonable. What kind of empirical verification can I provide?

I DID post a link that provided evidence that pit bull attacks have only been on the rise in recent decades despite almost a century of their existing as a domesticated dog breed in this country, and that this is most likely linked to the uprise in popularity of underground dog fighting rings (for which pits are admittedly ideal candidates).

But I can understand if that doesn't paint a full picture. What else can I at least attempt to provide evidence for?

Most deaths in the US are a result of pit bulls. They need to be banned, period.

See though, this is still misguided and shortsighted.

(First of all, saying that most deaths are a result of pit bulls is... ...at best, poorly worded, assuming I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

Let's say for sake of argument that you're right and that pit bulls are too dangerous to warrant anyone ever keeping them as pets. Given this happening, we have 2 options for dealing with them: 1) banning ownership of the dog, and 2) culling the entire breed in general. Neither of these are going to significantly reduce the risk of death or injury of US citizens from dog bites, however, and here's why:

1) Banning pits. The problem with this is that pits are already bred and raised as fighting dogs or attack dogs illegally anyway. Thus, criminals who really want to get their hands on pit bulls, whether they're breeding them for dog fight rings or as assault dogs, are still doing so illegally (albeit with some more difficulty, depending on how strictly said laws are enforced). In some ways it's the same as gun control laws in that it's taking a weapon out of the hands of the citizenry by denying it to them altogether, but malicious lawbreakers will still find ways to get it since they aim to subvert the law anyway.

In other words: the people who are using pit bulls for malicious and harmful purposes will still do so even if they are banned.

2) Culling the breed. In the same vein as above, if the entire breed is choked out and killed, put to death, gassed or what have you, criminals will just turn to different dogs for their dogfighting or man-mauling purposes, most likely rottweilers or german shepherds or something. People who are paranoid about dog bite injuries or fatalities will just find something else to panic about and point the finger at.

The fact remains that dogs have, for the most part, predictable behavior. Most of the time, a dog's motive for attacking can be identified with proper analysis. If it can't, well; it doesn't mean the dog is unpredictable, it just means there's something we don't know about it yet. This is apparently the case with breeds like rottweilers and germans from what I hear, but I'll probably need to quantify that with some more solid proof. Looking forthwith if I have time.

Edited April 17, 2014 by BANRYU

[Chiki]

I'm not so sure that everyone should be banned from keeping them. Some people can even keep tigers, with the right licenses, and I think that's ok.

But they should probably be banned for the average folk, who can't raise pets that well.

You say that criminals will turn to other kinds of dogs, and they're bred illegally. But the issue here is not that criminals are using dogs to hurt people, or that they're bred illegally. The issue here is that normal people, who aren't criminals, can't raise pit bulls well enough so they don't hurt others, and even then, they can hurt others due to insincts. But good tamers with licenses and such should easily be able to keep pit bulls in the same way they prevent tigers from going on a rampage.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Chiki

[BANRYU]

That's true to an extent; I think someone mentioned on the last page how pits can have trouble with unhealthy aggression if they're not brought up in a healthy social environment. (edit yeah loki and rehab both mentioned it)

I suppose it might be a bit paranoid and exaggerated in a different way to say that criminals are the cause of everything to do with them, but I definitely believe the part I read about pits bred or raised to be pit fighters can be very difficult to identify because of how friendly they act with people (which is legitimately pretty scary, although I can't recall the source; I'll try to find it and link it if I can). This in conjunction with the thing I said about other dog owners getting between their dogs and an attacking pit bull is what I'd estimate usually results in pit attacks on people. (but hell, I'm no expert... I'm just going off of what I read...)

I honestly can't fathom what would trigger the supposedly unprovoked pitbull attacks on babies or children, and it seriously sounds a bit fishy to me, as this contradicts most everything I've read about pit bull history and behavior.

Edited April 17, 2014 by BANRYU