Truth about American Pitbull terriers

[jubaji]

This is not due to the breed itself, but the fact that some breeds are larger and stronger than others. .

Ok, when was the last time you came across a report of a Newfoundland tearing a child to pieces?


Or a Great Pyrenees?

Or a Samoyed?

Or a Portuguese Water Dog?

Or an Irish Wolfhound?

Or a Bernese Mountain Dog?

etc.

[HtTKar]

Another thing is how people percieve things.

I went to the cemetery today with my sister to put flowers on my fathers grave. We never made it for Memorial day, and finally had time. Something happened to me that instantly made me think of this thread.

While we were driving up the road, a large mixed-breed dog, probably of austrailian shephard background started chasing my vehicle, barking and trying to bite my tires. When we got out of the vehicle, the dog still stuck around barking and harrassing us.

Now, I have no fear of dogs, and could tell that this dog was a happy dog, just trying to have some fun. As annoying as it was, He was probably having the time of his life running around in a huge fenced-in cemetery. But if my buddy was there, who has a unrational fear of dogs, he probably would not get out of the car. He would have been petrified. If this dog was a Bully breed, instead of a Mutt, many people might be scared do to all the stereotypes that surround the breeds, and they might not get out of the car. Obviously not ALL dogs are dangerous, but he will never be convinced of that. He has an irrational fear based on an unlogical way of perceiving threats. He stereotypes ALL dogs as being dangerous, as some others would stereotype all dogs of a specific breed as being dangerous, just as some children percieve all dogs as being as friendly as their household pet. Its just not true.

[jubaji]

Still avoiding the point that some breeds are more dangerous than others.

[GQchris]

Another thing is how people percieve things.

I went to the cemetery today with my sister to put flowers on my fathers grave. We never made it for Memorial day, and finally had time. Something happened to me that instantly made me think of this thread.

While we were driving up the road, a large mixed-breed dog, probably of austrailian shephard background started chasing my vehicle, barking and trying to bite my tires. When we got out of the vehicle, the dog still stuck around barking and harrassing us.

Now, I have no fear of dogs, and could tell that this dog was a happy dog, just trying to have some fun. As annoying as it was, He was probably having the time of his life running around in a huge fenced-in cemetery. But if my buddy was there, who has a unrational fear of dogs, he probably would not get out of the car. He would have been petrified. If this dog was a Bully breed, instead of a Mutt, many people might be scared do to all the stereotypes that surround the breeds, and they might not get out of the car. Obviously not ALL dogs are dangerous, but he will never be convinced of that. He has an irrational fear based on an unlogical way of perceiving threats. He stereotypes ALL dogs as being dangerous, as some others would stereotype all dogs of a specific breed as being dangerous, just as some children percieve all dogs as being as friendly as their household pet. Its just not true.

Boobaji's just the most opinionated, illogical asshole on here.. don't bother, people like him are ruled by what the media reports... he'll be the first one to go crying to ban something and doesn't take the different variables into consideration..

[HtTKar]

Still avoiding the point that some breeds are more dangerous than others.

actually I said;

I agree that some breeds are more dangerous than others. This is not due to the breed itself, but the fact that some breeds are larger and stronger than others.

http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm

Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards Other Dogs?



The short answer, "No."



"There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive, vicious or dangerous." - testimony from Standing Committee on amendments to the Dog Owners Liability Act. 2005

"Variability in behaviour has a wider range within a breed than between breeds. Within the discipline of psychobiology and animal behaviour there is no data from empirically supported studies, published in refereed scientific literature, to support the idea that one breed of dog is `vicious.' The adult behaviour of a domestic dog is determined overwhelmingly by its experiential history, environmental management and training." - Dr. Mary Lee Nitschke, Ph.D.

It is more common than not to hear 'pit bulls' referred to as "dog-aggressive". In fact, they aren't. Some may become fearful around other dogs due to a lack of proper socialization. But this happens with all breeds of dogs, not just 'pit bulls'. Unfortunately, this lack of socialization is frequently encouraged by those who fancy themselves 'pit bull' experts. (To read what others have to say about taking 'pit bulls' to dog parks, click here. Read the letter from the Kerwood Wolf Education Centre Inc: "Are Pit Bulls Like 'Dangerous' Wolves?")



Citing the breed's history as a dog fighter, some people believe there is some kind of magic "dog fighting" gene or brain chemistry that is passed along from sire and dam to puppy. The truth is, there is no such thing. (Read the article from Dr. Gary Goeree, DVM, regarding the theory that 'pit bulls' have some kind of unique brain chemistry.)



So why are so many 'pit bulls' involved in attacks on other dogs? Well, the answer is, they aren't necessarily involved more often than any other breed. For instance, Rottweilers are probably involved in just as many attacks on other dogs, yet they were not bred for dog fighting. They were bred to herd cattle and work as guardians. If put to the test, most people would have to honestly answer that it is not 'pit bulls' involved in most of the dog biting incidents in their communities. Some, maybe. But just as many Labradors, Goldens, Dalmations, Jack Russells, Poodles, etc. also stand accused of biting other dogs.



Bites to other dogs are not unique to 'pit bulls', even though it is only 'pit bulls' who were originally bred for dog fighting.



To better understand the situation, we must look at statistical data about dogs who bite other dogs. In the real world, virtually every breed of dog has been attributed with bites to other dogs. Yet, only a handful of breeds, including 'pit bulls', were bred for fighting. If the reason a tiny percentage of 'pit bulls' bite other dogs is in their genes, why is only such a small percentage of them involved in biting incidents? (Wouldn't MOST of them be aggressive towards other dogs, if the breed is, in fact, genetically programmed to attack other dogs?) And why are breeds that were not bred for fighting involved in MORE dog-on-dog biting incidents than 'pit bulls'?



The answer is, aggression towards other dogs is a learned behaviour. As Cyndi Frendo of K9 Concepts aptly put it, "Aggression is a behaviour, not a temperament."



Believing the myth that 'pit bulls' are naturally aggressive towards other dogs, all-too-many people restrict their 'pit bulls' from normal, positive, social interactions with other dogs.
....

Think back to the accounts you've heard or read of 'pit bulls' seriously attacking other dogs. How many of those cases involved dogs at off-leash parks? A few...maybe. But the overwhelming majority of the dog attacks we've researched (involving 'pit bulls' and other dog breeds) take place on or directly adjacent to the attacking dog's owner's property.



More often than not, a dog-on-dog attack occurs when someone walks his/her dog past another dog's yard, and that dog runs out and attacks the passing dog.



It is clear that these are NOT well-socialized dogs that are regularly in the presence of other dogs, especially unrestrained. It is also obvious that these are not responsibly-owned dogs, since truly responsible dog owners ensure their dogs are properly socialized and they don't leave them unsupervised outside the home. (A properly socialized dog simply doesn't feel threatened by any dog that is not actually threatening it...'pit bull' or no.)



Quite the contrary to being "inherently aggressive towards other dogs", dog park regulars are typically happy to see 'pit bulls' in dog parks because they are often extremely playful and well-mannered dogs. (Especially given that they must be the types of 'pit bull' owners knowledgeable enough to dismiss the all too common counsel to avoid dog parks.) 'Pit bulls' that frequent dog parks are some of the best dogs around!

[jubaji]

Boobaji's just the most opinionated, illogical asshole on here.. don't bother, people like him are ruled by what the media reports... he'll be the first one to go crying to ban something and doesn't take the different variables into consideration..

Really? Hmmm...

Show me the post where I called for a ban. Go get it and paste it here, boy or shut the **** up you ignorant little shit.

As for illogical, no one else in this conversation has brought hard data (not personal stories about your Uncle Ralph or whatever) to the table, and disregarding facts because they've been reported in the media is just about as illogical as it gets.

So once again, you moronic little punk, STFU now.

[HtTKar]

Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards People?

Well, many of the fanciers of the breed would yell out a resounding, "No.", in spite of the fact that 'pit bulls' kill more humans than most of the other dog breeds combined.



"Oh, no. They were bred to be friendly towards humans." is the mantra one will often hear repeated. This idea flies in the face of the statistics. No other "breed" (although the term 'pit bull' is generally considered to be a group of breeds) has killed as many Americans as have 'pit bulls'. (NB: We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada officially attributed to a 'pit bull'.)



Does this mean that 'pit bulls' are inherently dangerous towards people? Even if we believed all the myths about 'pit bulls', the statistics still point to the fact that only a tiny percentage of the 'pit bulls' in society are ever involved in biting incidents. For instance, if there are at least 50,000 'pit bulls' in Canada, and we theorized an astounding 25 'pit bull' attacks, that would still mean that 99.9% of 'pit bulls' are never involved in attacks. Surely 99.9% of a population shouldn't have to pay the price for the transgressions of such a tiny minority.



So, are 0.1% of 'pit bulls' inherently aggressive towards humans? No, again. Even those 'pit bulls' that have been involved in serious biting incidents can be rehabilitated through responsible ownership and ethical training techniques. Only those who have never been successful at re-training dogs believe it can't be done. (Read about Dr. C. W. Meisterfeld's documentary, "The Unique Nature of Man's Best Friend: Rehabilitated 'Pit Bulls'")



Human fatalities are not unique to 'pit bulls' by any means. Every Group of dog breeds, even several members of the Toy Group, have been attributed with human deaths. Sure, according to American statistics, there are more 'pit bulls' involved in fatal dog bites, but many other breeds have also killed.



The ability to determine if a puppy will become a danger, one day, is best achieved by viewing the puppy's owner. Does that person hope the puppy will grow up to be fierce, or protective, or a weapon? If so, it doesn't matter what breed of dog they own. They will likely be successful, through improper training.



The sad fact is, many powerful breeds are purchased in the hopes they can be used as weapons. This is not unique to 'pit bulls'. However, the kinds of people who want their dogs to become aggressive have found that little 30-60 lb 'pit bulls' can be trained to be just as menacing as their larger counterparts, yet they cost a lot less to feed and house. And because they are physically much smaller, are easier for inexperienced owners to manage. They are the perfect "pocket protector", relative to much larger breeds that were originally created for the purpose of guarding or personal protection.

...
At times, in the United States, 'pit bulls' have been responsible for as many as one-third of dog-related fatalities in a given year. In other years, there have been few or no fatalities attributed to 'pit bulls', while other (irresponsibly-owned) dog breeds have been responsible for the dog-related fatalities that have occurred. This is more evidence of the overwhelming role owner-intent plays, rather than any theorized "inherently vicious" quality in 'pit bulls'. If 'pit bulls' were "inherently vicious", most of them would bite, and the numbers would remain constant. The facts prove the opposite: Nearly all 'pit bulls' never bite anyone or anything.]



(Again, we remind our readers that we have yet to confirm a single unprovoked dog-related fatality officially attributed to a 'pit bull' in Canada. The president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada is on record as stating that, since the breed was recognized by the Canadian Kennel club in 1965, there has not been one case...where a Staffordshire Bull Terrier made an unprovoked attack on a human being in Canada.



Cindy Cooke, the vice-president of the United Kennel Club - the organization that registers American Pit Bull Terriers, among others - is on record stating, "I have checked all fatal dog attacks since 1986 and no dog registered with the United Kennel Club has been involved in any...attacks.")



Nearly all 'pit bulls' never bite or kill anyone or anything, least of all responsibly-owned 'pit bulls'. When they do, the reasons are the same as they are for any of the other breeds who bite or kill. Poor supervision and lack of proper training and socialization by the dog's owner is to blame. This explains why so many unrelated breeds are involved in aggression incidents. Breed is not the deciding factor. The home environment is.

[HtTKar]

And more

Are 'Pit Bulls' More Likely To Bite?

All dogs are predators by nature, with teeth that can bite. However, proper rearing teaches dogs (and yes, children) how to get what they want without resorting to violence. All breeds of dog respond well to ethical training methods.



There are two main points that many people fail to recognize:

There is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite.

The breeds at the top of biting statistics are the most popular breeds at the time. Meaning, in Canada, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, and German Shepherds and other popular breeds top the bite statistics. Any dog can bite. Any poorly trained and unsupervised dog may bite unprovoked. Breed is not the deciding factor, training and supervision is.

[jubaji]

Most of those quotes were on a topic other than the one being discussed here.

Thanks for the contribution

[jubaji]

Attribution: The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Humane Society of the United States

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/

http://www.cdc.gov/

http://www.hsus.org/

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/misc/about.shtml

"The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Humane Society of the United States recently updated data on fatal dog bites for the period 1989 to 1994.

In the 6-year study published in the medical journal PEDIATRICS (Vol.97 No. 6, 891-5), Jeffrey J. Sacks, M.D. and associates reported the finding of 109 bite-related fatalities. They found that 57% of the deaths were in children under 10 years of age. 22% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog OFF the owner's property. 18% of the deaths involved a restrained dog ON the owner's property, and 59% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog ON the owner's property.

The researchers also found that 10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants.

The most commonly reported dog breeds involved were pit bulls (24 deaths), followed by rottweilers (16 deaths), and German shepherds (10 deaths). The authors point out that many breeds, however, are involved in the problem.

The death rate from dog bite-related fatalities (18 deaths per year) in the 6-year study period remained relatively constant compared with the prior 10 years."

[jubaji]

HtTKar quoted this: "Again, we remind our readers that we have yet to confirm a single unprovoked dog-related fatality officially attributed to a 'pit bull' in Canada. The president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Canada is on record as stating that, since the breed was recognized by the Canadian Kennel club in 1965, there has not been one case...where a Staffordshire Bull Terrier made an unprovoked attack on a human being in Canada."

which is really interesting because: "Canada has no national data on canine population, dog-related deaths and injuries, or which breeds cause the most harm." according to the Canada Safety Council.

Hmmmmm....yes, very interesting indeed.

[jubaji]

Seems they've had some problems with dangerous breeds in Australia as well:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/aug4/thompson/thompson.html

[GQchris]

[QUOTE=jubaji]Really? Hmmm...

disregarding facts because they've been reported in the media is just about as illogical as it gets.

QUOTE]


try again boobaji, opinionated little bitch... run along and go play with your cats

[jubaji]

way beyond time for you to shut the **** up

That's it kid, keep piling on the evidence of your stupidity...

[GonzoStyles]

Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996 (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

So are Rotts in the same category as Pits Jubaji?

If they are responsible for HALF the deaths in this time frame studied doesnt that make Pits responsible for LESS than half of the fatalitys in the same time frame given that other dogs types killed people as well?

Pomeranian might have been on your list too Jubaji but after I squashed your Lhaso Apso referance to show that ANY breed can kill under the wrong circumstances. To say that a certain breed wont bite a human in a way that could lead to a fatality is dangerously WRONG and closeminded.

This topic is so funny considering I helped a friend last night in transporting his newly adopted pit. This dog was found wandering by his father who has 5 rescued mixed breeds on his fenced 4 acres. He had seen her for several days wandering the woods with another stray who was eventually killed by a car. He then fed her a few times before bringing her home to try and find an owner for her. He offered her to his son my friend John because he considers her a smart and non-aggressive dog, still full of piss and vinegar at her age
(4-5months) but with an attentive and submissive personality. She stayed with Frank (johns dad) about a week and a half and got along great with all the dogs once she accepted her place in the pack, even making freinds with the oldest and crankiest of the mutts. She rode to his house with me sitting up and paying close attention to everything that went by, never even barking (she is a very quiet dog as most pits are) or once giving me a problem on the way back.
Seems some one has worked a little with her as she will sit and stay like a champ. She took right away to her new owner John and Elvis his roomates Bassethound. John took her for a walk, she heeled great, and never attempted to strain towards the other dogs or kids playing, just taking in her new surrondings.
She even took her first bath at her new home off leash without bolting ONCE, verbal reassurance was all that was necessary to make her hold still for the entire bath. I have a great picture of me rinsing her off, Ill get it from John maybe post it up.
All in all I feel she will be a great ambassador for pits.