Pit Bulls: What's the appeal?

great dog
great great dog

do not like pit bulls one bit

http://usuarios.multimania.es/tmptmp/pit%20bull.gif

pit bulls can be the sweetest motherfuckers ever, btw, and yours is no exception. henry approves!

http://tofuhut.racknine.net/2007/Banjo/DSCN1269.JPG
truly dangerous animals

http://tofuhut.racknine.net/2007/Banjo/DSCN1257.JPG
vicious beasts

i mean i know that i bought a dog from the breed that tends to get the most uber cuddle buddy lovebug vibes in the large breeds (deserved btw), but i grew up w/ german shepherds and dobermans and i sincerely believe that there really arent any bad breeds (and i hang out on the regular w/a rhodesian ridgeback that frequents the neighborhood bar on the regular), just bad breeders and bad owners. pits can be really sweet, and it sucks that theyve gotten such a bad rap.

the thing peeps tend to forget is that dogs basically live to make their owner pleased, its one of the closest and weirdest human/animal bonds, so if some douche wants his dog to be a snapping froth mouthed dick, they will oblige, but all this dangerous breed bullshit is uh bullshit

not all are "vicious beasts," i grant you. is that one yours, forks? cute. and i'm sure totally tame. i know all dogs can be good with proper training and a loving home. but i cannot shake the feeling that pit bulls are an unstable -- and aggressive -- breed. had a near-bad experience with one once, and that was enough for me.

semi-related story: my wife found a male rotweiler a few years ago. i called some vets to see how those dogs did as pets. one told me he had a male and a female rot. he said the female was always kindly and even-tempered. and he said the male was also a good dog, too. but, he said, when he looked into the male rot's eyes, he always knew there could be a problem, and if there was, it would be serious. that stuck with me. we found a good home for "bubba" (my wife's name for the rot), but he didn't stay with us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBPEHKtOZMY
yeah that black one with the white stripe is mine. pibbles are naturally loving with people but they can be VERY protective of owners and territory. We're going through a rough patch with ours right now where she just wants to bark and lunge at everyone, but it's all fear and showing off; she's had multiple opportunities to do damage and always backs down. We're pretty sure she was abused when younger (scars on leg, came malnourished, runs anytime she sees us with a broom) and was a rescue so i gotta deal with adoption history. It's a constant struggle. but she's being awfully cuddly right now and i think i'm gonna go cuddle with a pit right now.

"smile dog" really wants water methinks

also re: the dangerous dogs argument genetically the closest living breed to the bernese is the rottweiler

ha xposts to the rotty mention a few posts ago! esp since bernese are typified by their "soft look"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27907798@N00/4239706258/sizes/m/

not all are "vicious beasts," i grant you. is that one yours, forks? cute. and i'm sure totally tame. i know all dogs can be good with proper training and a loving home. but i cannot shake the feeling that pit bulls are an unstable -- and aggressive -- breed. had a near-bad experience with one once, and that was enough for me.

― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:47 AM (6 minutes ago)

this kinda bothers me tbh and i'd refer you to jj's two posts above, which are beautiful & otm. tho you obviously know that your very limited experience can't be extended to the breed as a whole

i know that. and i'm sure they can be fine dogs. nevertheless, i would never let my daughter choose a pit bull as our family pet.

also i am a dude that carries a scar on my wrist from a doberman bite, and a scar on my eyebrow from a german shepherd, but both dogs were stuck in a sad fucked up situation (permanent outside kennel in mn combined with underfeeding for the doberman, far past viable existence for the shepherd because of total hip dysplasia and lick wounds) and honestly i could choose to think the breeds were the problem, but it seems obvious to me that i was a victim of bad dog care, not bad dogs.

:)

i am tempted to correct that statement to say not bad dog breeds, but (ok and maybe this is crazy dog loving dude talking) i dont think either of them were bad dogs, just really sad unfortunate outcomes of their situation. i mean tbf, i have been savaged and attacked by more cats than dogs for sure.

and, btw, my limited experience is by no means the only evidence:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2000)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in 2000 a study on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979-1998. The study found reports of 238 people killed by dogs over the 24-year period, of which "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly responsible for killing 76, or about 32 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities or about 18 percent of the study-identified fatalities. In aggregate, pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 50% of the fatalities identified over the 20-year period covered by the study, and for 67% of the DBRF reported in the final two years studied (1997-1998), concluding

"It is extremely unlikely that they (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers) accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

The report's authors went on to say:

"Although the fatality data are concerning, one must broaden the context to consider both fatal and nonfatal bites when deciding on a course of action. ...(A) 36% increase in medically attended bites from 1986 to 1994 draws attention to the need for an effective response, including dog bite prevention programs. Because (1) fatal bites constitute less than 0.00001% of all dog bites annually, (2) fatal bites have remained relatively constant over time, whereas nonfatal bites have been increasing, and (3) fatal bites are rare at the usual political level where bite regulations are promulgated and enforced, we believe that fatal bites should not be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dog bite prevention."

The report's authors suggested that "generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective."

The latest CDC "Dog Bite: Fact Sheet" includes a disclaimer regarding this study, saying that

"it 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. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. 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."

___________________________________________________

Clifton report (2009)

Mr. Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News, has compiled from press reports a log of dog attack deaths and severe bites in the United States and Canada from September 1982 through December 22, 2009. The study methodology counted attacks "by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, (that) have been kept as pets." Mr. Clifton acknowledges that the log "is by no means a complete list of fatal or otherwise serious dog attacks" since it excludes "dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, ...attacks by police dogs, guard dogs, and dogs trained specifically to fight...."

The study found reports of 345 people killed by dogs over the 27-year period, of which "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly responsible for killing 159, or about 46 percent, of the people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 70 fatalities or about 20 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 66% of the study-identified fatalities.

Mr. Clifton has concluded that

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier…has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."

admittedly, some of what i omitted are other studies and reviews that have more equivocal results. but there is non-anecdotal evidence suggesting reasons to be very cautious about pit-bulls.

but i agree with jjjustin that a lot of this has to do with environmental conditions and giving them a loving home.

cats (and i have one) are mean assholes. the nastiest animal i have ever met that was a pet was a green parakeet that would go out of its way to injure any human in its path. mean little lizard brained son or a bitch.

xxpost: yeah but again the fact that jerk ass motherfuckers get pitbulls and train them to be aggressive is the issue there. 20 years ago dobermans and shepherds were the same fear status, and nobody knew what the hell pitbulls were

there are dangerous and cruel "dogfighting" groups in miami. they're underground, but they're here.

see, e.g., this October 2009 New Times article

wrt those numbers - i'd be curious to see what, for example, the avg household income is among the pit owners compared to other breeds, and if one breed is more prone to abuse or neglect by its owners or breeders

ha not that poor people are animal abusin' assholes but i'd imagine the living conditions/diets of the dogs to be suboptimal

xxpost: yeah but again the fact that jerk ass motherfuckers get pitbulls and train them to be aggressive is the issue there. 20 years ago dobermans and shepherds were the same fear status, and nobody knew what the hell pitbulls were

― rhea perlman is "horrible" (jjjusten), Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:18 AM (6 minutes ago)

this too

i think that one of the biggest points here is that any purebred dog has its faults. fortunately, there has been a turn towards fixing these problems in the last few years. bernese were bred for specific cosmetic traits which led to weird short lifespans due to cancer, and pits (and this was far more creepy and damaging in many ways) had a bad spell where they were bred for aggression. fortunately, we are talking about species that have short generational lifespans, so fixing these issues is just the matter of careful breeding choices.

worth noting that the breeding means a lot of pits die early of genetic issues. there was a massive squat rednose that lived on our block that died at age four because of massive cancerous tumors in its lungs. it's a real shame.

due diligence of dog owners is also ultra key. when we first started looking for bernese, we had a great hookup with some lady in WI that seemed to have great dogs and focused her website on how sweet they were. a little bit of snooping led me to the fact that she had a parallel site where she talked about her rottweilers being bred for "full aggression and attack capabilities", which made me 86 her bullshit immediately.

the best thing any dog owner, pit or beagle or pug oriented can do is contact their local dog club and ask for breeder recommendations. people with that level of love for a breed don't want unhealthy (and yeah, that means physically and mentally) dogs out there. the avg bernese lives for 6 years (!), but all of Henrys ancestors made it to an avg of 12.

I'm generally pro-pitbull, but blaming it on 'bad owners' is too easy. They (and other fighting/baiting/protection/etc. dogs) are more capable of violence (killing violence) than a dalmatian or a Golden Retriever. An owner has to be extra-vigilant to counter those instincts. While some problems may stem from dogs being raised in bad environments, others stem from dogs being in good environments but owners not being knowledgeable or capable enough to control a dog that can seriously injure an adult human, and some come from owners having dogs from particularly aggressive lineages but not knowing it.

The notion that pit bulls account for the largest number of major attacks because they're (theoretically) owned by more poor people (or minorities or whatever) is pretty, uh...

yeah but i any large dog can seriously injure an adult human, i mean i am hanging out w/ a 95 pound puppy with the jaw pressure of a rott (which means = to a shepherd or pit btw) and tho he is fully capable of putting the hurt on someone, that capability is not an issue. and you can breed aggression out of a breed, and in the modern day, any good breeder will and should do that.

but i agree with jjjustin that a lot of this has to do with environmental conditions and giving them a loving home.

― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:17 AM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark

glad you came around to this cause yr initial posts were driving me kinda crazy tbh

if you want to talk about breed disposition, pits are normally sweet and great w/ kids. petey from the little rascals was a pit bull! but pits are also strong as hell, tenacious, and have a high pain threshold, which unfortunately makes them a perfect target for the assholes who run dogfighting rings. they've also become the standard issue breed for tough guys in the hood, and a combination of neglect and the sadistic shit they get put through to "make them mean" accounts for most of the attack statistics you cited.

it's a goddamn shame what sick ends humans have abused this breed into producing.

also, milo z, have you ever lived in a poor section of town? where every 3rd dog you see is a pit bull?

everything forks was saying 6 months ago itt is otm

My disagreement is with the idea that "poor section of town" = "terrible owners (responsibly for statistical likelihood of violence)," Edward. I've pretty much always lived in poor/working-class areas and the defining characteristic of "every 3rd dog" is not pit bull, but "mutt." That may quite often have some pittie characteristics, but just as much of any other medium-sized breed (terrier or retriever or whatever).

yeah but i any large dog can seriously injure an adult human, i mean i am hanging out w/ a 95 pound puppy with the jaw pressure of a rott (which means = to a shepherd or pit btw) and tho he is fully capable of putting the hurt on someone, that capability is not an issue.

and you can breed aggression out of a breed, and in the modern day, any good breeder will and should do that.

And Average Pit Bull X is probably not coming from a good breeder who's handling their shit - they're coming from accidental litters, rescues/pounds, back yard breeders, puppy mills, etc.. You taking the time to find just the right breeder is not the norm for any dog owner, and what good ones might do is not entirely at issue.

I'm pro-pit bull overall (Cesar Milan's grey pittie Junior is the cuetest dog ever), but assigning blame primarily to bad individual owners and denying that the breed may have certain characteristics that manifest even in good homes doesn't work for me. There are bad circumstances for the breed in general, a combination of aggression and power owners don't know how to handle, popularity/over-breeding, some bad owners. By and large the dogs themselves are powerful creatures with high potential for an aggressive streak, and that has to be recognized.

My disagreement is with the idea that "poor section of town" = "terrible owners (responsibly for statistical likelihood of violence)

i mean you can continue to believe that this is exactly what i said or like, read the post

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/pawprintpost/post/2010/02/doggy-rip-cesar-millans-pitbull-mix-daddy-passes-away/1

I was watching an episode the other day that was dedicated to Daddy's memory, but I didn't know if it was a repeat or not. RIP

http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/womans-arm-severed-in-dog-attack-20100323-qslg.html?autostart=1

pits are good dogs. if i ever get a dog it'll be some unwanted, maladjusted shelter mutt.

a bit fucked that they've 'destroyed' the dog already :|

They haven't got the dog's side of the story!

any dog that unprovokedly attacks its owner and causes serious damage needs to be put down
we had a trainer come by last night to talk about our pups agression issue and her final call was that she was a well-adjusted dog, but needed somewhat greater training to give her some disciplinary action so she could figure out when she was misbehaving. gonna try three weeks of this; see where it gets us.

http://pitbullextreme.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pit-bull-puppies.jpg

kinda disappointed there's no comments section

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9D9f_ySvkA

Puppy dog wants to play tug-of-war with cop car. Cop not nearly as amused.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/4904/pitbull.jpg

Here's a lovely little story...

http://gothamist.com/2010/04/28/dog_bite_victims_get_their_own_lawy.php#comments

Feel like we've had this discussion already, but I'm in favor of putting down any animal that savages a human.