Imagine a dog owner saying "Strongly agree" to something like "Dog has a tendency to attack (or attempt to attack) other dogs", or "Dog behaves aggressively towards children." (I believe these were questions in the surveys given to the dog owners).
> No no, not my precious Bulldozer, he's a sweety, just gets excited sometimes. I'll only put "neither agree nor disagree", because he only tries to attack dogs who are smaller than him.
I mean, I get it, nobody wants to think ill of their beloved pet, but that's the point. A study like this needs objective measures.
Anecdotally, so far I have only seen bite injuries in the ER from Pit-bulls and German Shepherds (n < 5).
That being said, whether or not breed specific legislation works to minimize dog bites is a separate scientific question.
Shelter is about at capacity here and most of these kind of dogs are put down which I didn't want to see. This dog was young (maybe 3) and friendly. My old border collie was bored and lonely and was very happy to have another dog. They get along great. Old border collie is the brains of the operation and Pit goes along.
So... now I'm a proud pitbull owner. Well, not proud, but an owner at least. It's maybe not as embarrassing as having a toy poodle, but going out for walks with a mean looking ghetto dog isn't something I aspired to and it's not what I would have chosen.
I took him to dog training because I was nervous about the breed. It's taught by a former police officer who specializes in handling dogs and is really great and I've learned a lot. We are now in the second advanced class and he's been doing well. I spend an hour a week in class with him and every week or so a "Pack Walk" on Saturday led by the instructor with a bunch of other dogs and people.
I know the breed is responsible for a lot of attacks (and deaths) so I don't disagree with your assessment and I felt exactly the same way but now I feel differently. According to the instructor the breed is not inherently dangerous if raised correctly but I feel extra precaution is warranted.
I live way outside town, very rural and have no neighbors so am in somewhat of a unique position to have a dog like this, I'm not sure I would have kept him if I lived close to other people. But so far no issues. He's very happy to have a home, gets along fantastic with my other dog and is pretty well trained at this point and he loves me more then my mom I think. Knock on wood he stays that way and honestly I don't mind a scary powerful dog watching the house but I am keeping a close eye on him for signs of aggression or violence. Which he has yet to exhibit so far.
The instructor says often: "We don't have a dog problem, we have a people problem".
Although pits were bred to be a fighting dog I wonder how much bad behavior can be attributed to the breed, and how much to the type of people that usually own and raise that breed.
The most obvious to me are the breeds that were bred for herding, and where you see that behaviour in mixes of that breed as well - even if it's muted some.
And I tend towards agreeing with you re: pitbulls. I've seen perfectly friendly and generally very gentle pitbulls snap - there's no reason for this amongst the general population.
My Golden Retriever on the other hand won't even chase a squirrel. He has finally learnt to guard my rabbits from the foxes, but it took a lot of training.
"Number of different breeds with similar risk rates for dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) including: Malamutes, Chow Chows, Saint Bernards, Huskies, Great Danes, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, Mastiffs, Pitbull-Type dogs, Akitas, German Shepherds, and Bulldogs."
Even if some users comment that the dog is dangerous based on how it looks, that doesn't refute the trove of evidence that pitbulls can be an inherently unsafe breed compared to non-fighting breeds.
Haha, I'm sorry but this is hilariously false. All other working-dog breeds have genetically ingrained behaviours that no one teachers them - retrievers retrieve without anyone teaching them, border collies corral ducks and children without anyone teaching them, pointers point without anyone teaching them.
However pitbulls are always the odd one out in the apologists' eyes - somehow them being purposefully bred for fighting bulls, rats and dogs and having behaviour and features that would make them successful in these pursuits is nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with their owners. Despite there being many cases of pits being adopted by very kind and caring owners and the dog still mauling them.
Non-pointers point. Some pointer don't.
Non-retreivers retrieve. Some retreivers don't.
Non-herding dogs herd. Some herders don't.
Most dogs play-fight. "Fighting dogs" have to be trained to fight to kill.
Breeding is clearly a fantastic determinant of physical characteristics which pair well with the desired behaviour, and does contribute a little bit towards behavioural instinct, but (as per the *peer-reviewed long term study* in question) isn't on its own a good predictor of behaviour.
The ~.001%, by the way, is termed idiopathic aggression (sometimes called cocker rage, but again is NOT actually well-correlated with cocker spaniels). Idiopathic means of unknown cause.
This is not a silver bullet, even for recently published Nature/Science papers. You need to convince 3-4 people to get your paper published in the end. For many controversial papers, there is a lot of back and forth about the validity of the results (e.g., "Matters Arising" in Nature).
The biggest flaw of this study is relying on subjective reports by the owners. Almost all dog owners I know are used to playing down the severity of their dog's aggressiveness.
If you have to argue that:
- you actually need a PhD in dog psychology(or whatever "understanding dog behaviour" means) to have this specific breed
- that pretty much "yes breed determines traits and behaviours but also doesn't!"
- conflating play fighting with very pit bull specific action of biting down and shaking(a technique bred into them for bloodsports) to prove that no, pit bulls are actually not so dangerous and just like any other breed
...to prove that pitbulls aren't potentially inherently dangerous then I can't take your argument seriously.
Just the fact that pitbulls being a minority of the dog population in the US and UK and still causing the majority of maulings and dog attack fatalities should be evidence enough that something's fishy.
Well, the severity of their attacks is essentially a results of their genetics. As for the type of owner, it the same logic used against gun control, saying that they pose no danger if the owner is responsible.
Whatever the combination of factors, the end result on a large scale point to pitbulls as the most dangerous breed of dog to humans and banning them should be a no-brainer.
On that topic, I realize it's controversial but think pitbulls should be banned outright - they are responsible for the majority of fatal dog-related attacks and there is a wealth of evidence indicating that they are not a desirable breed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/