4 ms·

Good move unless it includes pit bull. Pitbull mixes are not appropriate for family pets and anyone who says otherwise is lying to you or themselves. Please pr

• hnbad 3y ago
  The problem with this widespread belief is that there is no such thing as a "pit bull". Or rather, there are many and some of the breeds are entirely unrelated. Likewise news stories are usually thin on the specifics and fail to identify exact breeds or may mislabel them entirely. Generally most people shouldn't have dogs because they lack the time and energy to properly train them (or in the case of adult dogs: to compensate for their lack of training). But you're right that there are some dog breeds that are more prone to biting accidents than others: but if you go by the actual numbers your advice should also explicitly apply to German shepherds.
  • ltbarcly3 3y ago
    Pitt Bulls are responsible for far more attacks. Pitt breeds are responsible for basically 100% of attacks on their own families.
  • dragonwriter 3y ago
    > but if you go by the actual numbers your advice should also explicitly apply to German shepherds. Pretty much everything people say about Pit Bulls today was said about other breeds before, including German Shepards and Doberman Pinschers. I think the change over time is mostly fashion trends among people who deliberately keep and train dogs for actual or perceived viciousness, and media trends interacting with that.
  • google234123 3y ago
    Plenty of evidence against the Pit Bull Terrier type dogs. I can get you a dozen more studies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/figure/f6-wjem-22-1301/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/figure/... (bitten by a pit bull increased as the level of intervention increased from no repair (6.0%) to repair in the OR (25.8%)) https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatality-report-2005-2017.php https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fata... 2/3rds of fatal attacks.
    • boppo1 3y ago
      Thank you, I don't have time to dig through my research folder at the moment.
  • cityofdelusion 3y ago
    Not enough nuance in your comment. Shepherds are mouthy, bitey breeds as part of their bred disposition to herd -- they can draw blood and hurt infants, but they tend to have a "gentle" bite with their families -- they are strongly protective. Pits have a different lineage and a different neural pathway with their biting instincts.
    • hnbad 3y ago
      Okay, how's this for nuance? There are plenty of news stories about shepherds killing or severely injuring toddlers. Heck, even the POTUS' shepherd has injured and hospitalized multiple people: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67015811 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67015811 People make up all kinds of pseudoscience about why pit bulls are involved in so many severe attacks (e.g. the myth of "locking jaws" after a bite - which isn't a thing in any dog breed). The core problem with most of these claims is that "pit bull" is not a breed but actually a number of different breeds and mutts, many of which aren't even related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull All of these contribute to statistics involving "pit bulls" (contrast this with German shepherds, which are very narrowly defined) and even then this ignores that people looking for aggressive dogs often want "pit bulls" because of their reputation and make them aggressive (i.e. traumatized) before they eventually end up as rescues in situations where the aggression endangers children. I don't like dogs, generally, and I don't like most "pit bulls" because of their looks alone, but most of the studies people like to cite uses garbage data that fails to consistently define "pit bulls" (if you look at the methodology the groupings usually rely on what breed the dog is registered as which tells you nothing given that "pit bull" isn't a breed and various mutts will be lumped in as well) on top of being misrepresented by people trying to reaffirm their biases instead of looking at the complex socio-cultural context. Heck, most studies don't even correct for population sizes (i.e. giving statistics about registered dog breeds relative to the number of dogs registered for each breed). Most of the difference between dog breeds are cosmetic, some are physical, very few are "neurological" but at the end of the day, all dogs are domesticated predators, all dogs can bite and dog bites can be life threatening to humans. All things considered, dog breed is one of the least important factors to whether a given dog poses a threat or not. Yeah, big dogs are more likely to bite in a way that is life threatening and anxious dogs are more likely to bite and abused dogs are more likely to be anxious and dog breeds seen as "aggressive" are more likely to be abused. But given how diverse and hetereogenous the group of dogs classified as "pit bulls" is, any genetic argument is clearly nonsense and just because you can misinterpret studies to reaffirm your biases that doesn't mean you're not just trying to find a simple and easy to reason about explanation to a very complex problem.
• galleywest200 3y ago
  Shelters will just not label the dog as a pitbull mix. I got a "border collie mix" that is indeed border collie but a DNA test shows it is part pitbull. Also part rhodesian ridgeback, part a bunch of other things.
• lukev 3y ago
  There is absolutely nothing wrong with a well trained and socialized pit bull/mix. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you or themselves. EDIT: None of the papers folks have posted control for training or socialization. I grant you that due to socioeconomic factors you will in fact find more samples of aggressive pitbulls than aggressive dogs of other breeds in most regions, but that is not what's under discussion. They are a physically strong breed that is capable of lots of damage when not trained well, but that's true of many other breeds too. It's just less common (these days) to see abused or neglected german shepherds, rottweilers, sheepdogs, huskies, etc. The video you posted is a sensationalist news story, not any kind of actual analysis.
  • ryandvm 3y ago
    Disagree. I've had dogs all my life - many breeds. We currently have a rescue that is a pit/lab mix and although she is sweet as could be to humans, she is a menace at the dog park or day care. Constantly trying to fight. Folks who say that breeds don't matter are deluding themselves. Pits are just plain aggressive. There's a reason that every time you see a "DOG MAULS CHILD" headline, it's always one of the same few breeds (hint: it's never a golden retriever).
    • lukev 3y ago
      I’ve had numerous rescues as well, over my life, and this tends to be generally true for all breeds. The defining feature of a rescue is that they were not trained and socialized well.
  • nradov 3y ago
    I don't believe you. Most of those dogs are fine, but a few just seem to have a screw loose in a way that can't be fixed through training or socialization. People who believe otherwise are in denial or lack experience. Whether the root cause is due to irresponsible breeding or whatever is irrelevant, it's just really antisocial behavior to bring a pitbull where they can potentially present a risk to others. Think through the potential consequences. If a beagle freaks out and bites a toddler then they might need a few stitches. With a pitbull it can be fatal.
• Der_Einzige 3y ago
  I'll say it again and again - Pitbulls are black coded dogs and thus are treated like the black people of the dog world.
  • boppo1 3y ago
    Comparing Black people to dogs literally bred for aggression is abhorrent. Pitbull apologism: dangerous and offensive!