Are pitbulls dangerous?

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Surtur dijo:
Actually, many reported pit bull attacks are not committed by pit bulls. Oftentimes pit bull or sometimes rottweiler is used as a synonym for "large, aggressive dog" and even when the mix up is discovered it is still listed as a pit bull attack. Take a look at dog attack statistics in the 80s and see how they look now. In the early 80s the majority of dog attacks stemmed from "unknown " breeds with only a small few that were pit attacks. Now the numbers are reversed. Pit bull hysteria started in the 80s and I think that's why so many of these attacks are reported as pit bulls.
Presiona para expandir...
The study i read went as far back as 1979 and while what you say is true it continued well into the 90s and it was only in 97/98 that the number of pittbull type fatal attacks spiked it was pretty steady up untill that point. I think the media exaggerrates it, as it does everything, but i do think there is a kernal of truth that pittbulls and rottweilers are more dangerous than many other breeds.
 
melty dijo:
This is sort of my thinking. Is owning a certain type of dog really a right if that dog is a problem? A lot of pit bull fanatics go nuts over them and on any proposed breeding restrictions. Not even the aggressive rednecks or tough guy types, but otherwise normal people, I think sometimes get a thrill out of owning a "misunderstood" dog. There was one article around Christmas about a Santa nervous around a service dog that was a pit and I kind of got the feeling the family was going around looking for oppression.
If it's 100% the owner's behavior, then controlling pitbulls as a breed won't solve anything because the shitheads will just get a different kind of dog and that dog will be aggressive instead. But if there is a genetic component then I think these animals should perhaps be more restricted.
Presiona para expandir...

Even my own experience has me divided. I should have clarified that I'm willing to tender arguments against the idea that pit bulls are inherently dangerous, but nothing could sell me on the dog I have to deal with being sweet and innocent when it's attacked my family multiple times.

Its owners are redneck fucks and they mistreat their dogs, but the other one isn't nearly as aggressive and that doesn't jam with the suggestion that it's almost exclusively how the animal is treated. It substantiates the theory that it's a combination of factors, however.

The sticking point for me is the particular argument that breed is irrelevant and pit bulls, etc. aren't inherently more aggressive or difficult to control and therefore more dangerous. It's becoming hard to think of that as anything besides apologism or naivete.
 
Addendum to earlier, I'm no dog-ologist, but I bet the "Pitbull (mix)" that's at the pound is a lot more likely to have a ancestor or two from a generation or two back that was involved in being bred for dog fighting than one with whoopity shit papers.
 
Vitriol dijo:
The study i read went as far back as 1979 and while what you say is true it continued well into the 90s and it was only in 97/98 that the number of pittbull type fatal attacks spiked it was pretty steady up untill that point. I think the media exaggerrates it, as it does everything, but i do think there is a kernal of truth that pittbulls and rottweilers are more dangerous than many other breeds.
Presiona para expandir...
The problem is that breeds are not usually objectively identified in any way it's just based on what's reported and people generally can't identify true pit bulls. Mix ups happen all the time but are still considered a pit bull attack.
 
Okay with dogs most of it is based on training, but you can breed aggression into dogs as based on the Cordoba Fighting Dog (fought more than fucked, thus ending breed) and the controlled experiment which favours aggressive or friendly rats - both suggest that aggression and docility can be bred into animals. With pitbulls and other fighting/defensive breeds, often people preferred more aggressive dogs and their offspring remains in dog fighting rings around the world - while pitbulls may of been known as "Nanny Dogs" in the 19th-20th century they've been bred to be more aggro than they were originally.

But if you know anything about dog breeds and their purity you would know that a purebred is another word for a inbred dog, Pitbulls, Rotties, German Shepherds are all PALE IMITATIONS of their original, fucked up working-dog breeds because people bred in specific wanted specific traits.
 
Valiant dijo:
Okay with dogs most of it is based on training, but you can breed aggression into dogs as based on the Cordoba Fighting Dog (fought more than fucked, thus ending breed) and the controlled experiment which favours aggressive or friendly rats - both suggest that aggression and docility can be bred into animals. With pitbulls and other fighting/defensive breeds, often people preferred more aggressive dogs and their offspring remains in dog fighting rings around the world - while pitbulls may of been known as "Nanny Dogs" in the 19th-20th century they've been bred to be more aggro than they were originally.

But if you know anything about dog breeds and their purity you would know that a purebred is another word for a inbred dog, Pitbulls, Rotties, German Shepherds are all PALE IMITATIONS of their original, fucked up working-dog breeds because people bred in specific wanted specific traits.
Presiona para expandir...

Except that pits score extremely well in temperament tests.
 
melty dijo:
I've done some research, but both sides seem biased so it's hard to tell what the truth is. Anti pit people claim pits are inherently dangerous due to breeding and have a much higher incidence of fatal bites. Pro pit people claim pits aren't genetically predisposed to be more dangerous and most alleged pit attacks come from other animals. Of course there are a ton of pit fan stores about how their little fluffers is just the sweetest dog in the world but I don't really care about that.
Presiona para expandir...

I don't think pit bulls are inherently vicious. All the pit bulls I've known have been incredibly friendly, with the worst I can say about them that the worst were rather undisciplined and slobbery when affectionate.

The problem is if you look at their jaws compared to, say, a collie's jaw, it's like a trash compactor. If a pit bull does get vicious, they're physically capable of ripping someone to shreds and causing grievous injuries in seconds.

Then you have the fact that asshole owners are attracted to the breed precisely for this reason, often deliberately mistreat them to make them vicious, or just leave them outside all the time alone, and they go nuts. Then there's the association with drug dealers, criminals, just general trash people who keep them.

Keeping an animal like that requires a responsible owner. Actually, keeping any animal does, but pit bulls are the type of animal that actually present a serious danger to the public when the owner is irresponsible.

Children too young to understand dogs should be kept away from them, in the same way that they should be kept away from smaller animals they might inadvertently injure, but in this case, for their own protection.
 
Surtur dijo:
Except that pits score extremely well in temperament tests.
Presiona para expandir...
Yes, of course, but some of them are specifically bred to be aggressive. I am not saying all pitbulls are agressive, just the ones which are made to be artifically through selective breeding or training - but this is true with any other animal.
 
One thing that would really help is for a general purpose zero tolerance of asshole rednecks who deliberately cultivate the meanest dogs possible. It just shouldn't be acceptable for anyone to have a dog that aggressive unless they actually know what the fuck they're doing and have a real reason for needing aggressive and powerful animals rather than "wait till dem jungle bunnies get a look a' thisun! We'll win the next pit match for sure, Clem."
 
I am just going to leave this hear http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-city-centre-dog-attack-10104784 happened less than a day ago.

I am not a fan of bull terriers, staff's or a like an it's mostly because of my experience with the owners being totally incapable of taking care of a animal at all, and they being used as a weapon or not so subtle intimidation (this isn't true of all owners I know).

I can't recall who said it up thread about this type of dog being responsable for the majority of canine related live stock deaths in the UK, they are also the main offender when it comes to deaths of other dog's in public spaces in the UK than any other bread.
 
I'm really on the fence about this.

I don't have too much experience with pitbulls myself, so I can't say for sure whether the whole thing is nature or nurture. Or a little bit of both.

I'm sure there's plenty of friendly pitbulls, but just in case, I'd stay wary of them for the sake of me and the safety of my own dogs. Same goes for any dog really.
 
Okay, this is a pretty complex issue and I honestly can't say which side I sympathize with more.

I'll get the obvious out of the way: Pitbulls are indeed very aggressive dog breeds, but as others have said, so are other breeds. It's largely to do with how they're raised and, more importantly, who raises them. Pitbulls are a member of the terrier family and terriers are known (among other things) for their focus and dedication when it comes to a given task. This is why pitbull attacks are particularly scary things, because once a pitbull decides it needs to go after someone or something, it will not stop for anyone or anything.
This kind of aggressive behavior can be seen in a wide variety of other dogs, of course-- especially the smaller dogs, the kinds that are owned by weak-willed people (I'm sorry, there's no nicer way to say it). The key difference is, of course, that smaller dogs are seen as 'cute' and, when they attack it's generally not as nasty (Example: Look what happened with CWC and his mom's beagles. Those things were owned by shitty dog owners and now they're extremely anti-social and aggressive.) because a person can easily physically overpower a small dog whereas a pitbull is basically one giant muscle in dog form. When someone decides to get a pitbull and they aren't able to overcome its willfulness, that's when these kinds of things happen.

So, yes. Pitbulls can be a very, very scary dog. Scarier than a lot of others, in a lot of cases.
I don't believe in mass euthanasia of any dog, any breed, for any reason, and for that I could never condone 'getting rid of' pitbulls altogether, though I can definitely agree that it might be better for most people if they aren't allowed access to such a breed.
However...
A pitbull can be a fantastic addition to any family. They're like all dogs in that they make wonderful companions and will protect the ones they love with their very lives if it comes down to it. There are plenty of upsides to owning a pitbull in particular.


I feel like the core issue here is just that people don't always have the best relationships with dogs.
I see plenty of dogs of all different breeds that are owned by people who do not grasp such basic things as how to walk the dog (don't pull on the leash if he/she is pulling!! Be more assertive and set the pace yourself), how to keep their dog from jumping on people who are unfamiliar, how to prevent aggression against others in a dog that's decided you're beholden to them instead of the other way around... the list goes on.

At the end of the day, maybe people just need to be better/more understanding dog owners, you know?
 
Valiant dijo:
But if you know anything about dog breeds and their purity you would know that a purebred is another word for a inbred dog, Pitbulls, Rotties, German Shepherds are all PALE IMITATIONS of their original, fucked up working-dog breeds because people bred in specific wanted specific traits.
Presiona para expandir...

So you're telling me incest is the way to breed superhumans.
 
I don't mean to paint with a broad brush, but I bet if you look a little closer at these people with aggressive dogs, you will usually find they are up to something illegal. I have noticed a trend around my area where grow-ops tend to have a couple of large dogs to protect the crops.
 
Pitbulls, IIRC, bite statistically less than labradors.

HOWEVER when pitbulls do bite, they can cause all sorts of damage, and therefore are responsible for more serious injuries when they do, hence the data in @Valiant 's study ("Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks").

Most dog bites aren't reported, as they aren't serious enough to warrant it. In fact, I think small dogs statistically bite most often, as small dogs are often not corrected by their owners as much as large dogs are.

I got a lot of this from one of those Freakonomics-type books where they performed some statistical wizardry attempting to answer the same question as OP. If I can find it I'll post it up.
 
I can only speak from personal experience because the only pits I ever really interacted with were owned by my boyfriend. Believe me they were the sweetest dogs I ever met. They even got along with my boyfriend's rabbit. We still supervised them of course.

I think it's a matter of knowing what you're getting into when you get a certain type of dog.
 
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo