They’re not dumping ‘pandemic puppies’, they’re dumping the pitbulls that nobody wants. Breeders for dog fighting are pumping out dogs nobody wants because they’re reactive, dangerous, and have the ability to kill a human being, then maul them.
Shelters are full of them. So desperate to get rid of them, shelters underplay their aggressiveness and danger. This puts the general population at risk. The UK just passed a new set of laws against more breeds of pitbulls, and rightfully so. You can see all the evidence they used to make their decision. It’s gory and sad. So many people’s lives, and smaller dogs, gone forever.
Why would people breed dogs for dog fighting and then give them to the shelter revealing their criminal enterprise by donating a steady stream of dogs. There are more pits in the shelter because unwanted dogs of all varieties are donated to the shelter and pits are less adopted because of psycho propaganda repeated by weirdos like you and breed restrictions in apartments.
I bet you also pimp stories about rapists and criminals crossing the border.
The person said they bred for dog fighting. Their entire post was just rabid nonsense that doesn’t in any remote sense hang together. If you reread the entire parent comment they are basically babbling worse than language models prior to chatGPT
Breeders for dog fighting are pumping out dogs nobody wants because they’re reactive, dangerous, and have the ability to kill a human being, then maul them.
Do you have a link to any stats? There seem to be two sides to this debate, where one side insists that these breeds are inherently aggressive and the other side insists it isn’t true. I’m more inclined to believe to believe the former in my personal experience, but have always wanted something other than anecdotal to confirm.
All you’ve gotta do is Google 'human fatalities by dog breed chart" the numbers are all that matters, and frankly I’m annoyed that the data isn’t enough to deter people from owning these dogs. A friend from grade school had 1 attack his daughter to the point where the kid was hospitalized. They had that dog euthanized, and went right out and got another pit bull. You can’t fix stupid.
Dogs are a function of their upbringing and tend towards affectionate behavior towards humans. If socialized they will think of people outside their family as sources of attention instead of intruders. Pits aren’t different. 30-50 people die to dogs out of 338M people. By contrast over 300 die in bathtubs and almost 400k die from heart disease.
You would be safer slip proofing your bathroom or skipping that greasy burger rather than worrying about rover eating you.
Many dog advocates argue that there is no such thing as a bad breed, only a bad owner. Still, it can be helpful to understand which breeds of dogs are most commonly involved in bite incidents or acts of aggression. Dog attacks by breed statistics are invaluable both for individuals looking for a dog to adopt as well as for those who interact with animals who want to minimize risk.
The breed that commits the most attacks overall is pit bulls.
Pit bulls are involved in more dog attacks than any other breed. In fact, the American Animal Hospital Association reports this breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2% and German Shepherds were the third most dangerous breed, involved in 17.8% of bite incidents.⁶
The breed that is most likely to be involved in a fatal attack is pit bulls.
Pit bulls are both more likely to be involved in bite incidents and more likely to cause serious injury or death when a bite does occur. In fact, from 1979 to 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined pit bulls were involved in the most fatal dog attacks, accounting for 28% deaths due to dog bites during that same time period.⁷
I’ll add, I like pitties. I’ll also advise taking this with a grain of salt as so many mixed breed dogs fall into the pitbull umbrella.
Are those statistics weighted against breed prevalence? Because if not, those data aren’t really telling us anything significant. If pit bulls as a breed are overrepresented statistically, that would be a significant finding. Looking at the source material for the claim here: www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0165587618305950 doesn’t clearly state if the numbers are per capita of dog breed or if they’re just sheer numbers of attacks, regardless of prevalence of breed. Do you have a source that evaluates the statistics in such a manner?
This should be higher. I would be interested to know more about the actual numbers. A quick search also showed shelters are not good at accurately identifying breeds.
Couple of issues with this data. 1- People are much more likely to report bites from larger dogs (since they cause injury that requires medical treatment and reporting is done automatically) 2- Any stats by design are going to be correlational evidence and do not guarantee causality so it’s not at all clear that rate of bites by pits are higher or just more frequently reported because they are pits or because they are so common . 3- As others have pointed out pits are more likely to be found in lower SES homes where resources for training, toys and healthy outlets for dog energy like time for long, regular walks and playtime is less readily accessible. 4-Breeds most associated with aggression are most likely to be treated by humans in ways that incite dogs’ anxiety, which is a precursor to aggressive behavior.
I think that pitties are just the victim of really bad press. Once it became common knowledge that they were used in dog fighting, it became part of what everyone “knows” about pits. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy by seeing only results they expect rather than thinking about why they expected to see it in the first place.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8819838/ that still seems to find it may be more the human influence on a breed(or mixed breed dog as it were) than manifested in the breed itself.
An important finding was Pit Bull-type dogs in our community sample, as a group, were not more aggressive or likely to have a behavioral diagnosis than other dogs. As the nascent field of canine behavior advances, it will be important to better account for human influences on dog behavior. Our results showed genetic screening of canine behavior is feasible and suggest it may be useful for owners, breeders, shelters, working dog institutions and veterinarians.
If you were to compare the findings of the direct connection of anxiety, many smaller dogs have this but we as large humans tend to dismiss this in smaller dogs. The only reason we really focus into the pit bull is the association we’ve developed and the size. Also larger dogs are usually trained in defence. Less so with smaller dogs which also suffer with anxiety. No doubt a lot of owners get the ideal that they want to get a pit bull to install fear into other humans as a form of protection. this is a human introduction of a behavior.
Anecdotally my family owned many dogs. Sometimes we’d get a litter where two dogs behaved very differently to each other. We inherited many dogs with behavioural problems because of human error and the breed didn’t make a difference so much as size definitely did amongst the decisions many people made. No one wants to keep a large dog with behavioural issues. Why people associate it with pit bulls is mainly because statistically they are more prone to treat that particular breed (and in many cases any breed that looks associated to the pit bull) in such a way that installs more anxiety. That is a human error. Not a breed error.
The stats are easily manipulated by either side. The fact of the matter is that, given the number of attacks on humans and animals by pit bulls, and the average age of pits, roughly 1 in 10,000 pits will attack something in their life. This is an order of magnitude more frequent than rottweilers (the next most dangerous breed), and when a pit bull attacks, it’s more likely to kill its victim than any other dog breed.
1 in 10,000 is large enough for some people to say the whole breed needs to be euthanized, it’s small enough for some people to say that it’s negligible, and it’s at just the right spot for me to say that it should be illegal to breed them, but existing ones shouldn’t be euthanized.
Be mindful when reading the sources. This is a very polarizing debate, and it isn’t really as clear as “pitbulls are little angelbaby velvethippos” or “pitbulls are vicious killing machines”.
Pitbull is a range of phenotypes, not a breed. What we call pitbulls commonly are a mix of boxers, Am Staffs, bulldogs, american pit bull terriers, bull terriers, etc. So, we’re relying on police to ID these dogs after a bite has been reported, and so a large number of aggressive individuals of a variety of breeds/mutts might get lumped into “pitbull” by cops.
Also, dog attacks are more likely to occur in lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods where dog ownership practices are often less responsible, and cops are more likely to be in the first place. Pitbull-type dogs are more likely to be owned by lower SES individuals (in part because they’re so prevalent, but also due to cultural factors). So, it is likely that pitbull-type dogs are overrepresented by these statistics.
That said, it is wild that people claim that breeding does not impact behavior. Pitbulls and various bully breeds have often been bred to be aggressive and to guard territory, just like Cattle Dogs have been bred to nip at heels and keep creatures in a herd. Any cattle dog owner will tell you that their dog exhibits herding behavior even if it’s never seen a cow or sheep. It’s the same with some pitbulls and they happen to have one of the strongest bites of any type of dog coupled with a behavior where they latch on to the thing they’ve bitten and won’t let go, but will continue to thrash around causing major tissue damage. Contrast that to German Shepherds, another dog that makes up a large number of dog bite cases. Their bite force is less on average than that of a pitbull and most German Shepherd bites are fear-aggression related because GSDs are extremely neurotic and anxious (also due to breeding), so GSDs tend to bite and release unless they’re specifically bite trained, like for police work.
So anyway, just be aware that both sides of this debate try to put spin on it, but breed characteristics do matter, and our recordkeeping of dog breeds and bite statistics is flawed essentially due to the problems extant in law enforcement broadly.
This is a very well-thought and considered take. I usually sit on the side of not banning specific dog breeds as I’m yet to see compelling statistics to back up such a ban, or numbers on dog attacks where breed bans have been put in place that shows it works. Your point is very valid though that because this is such an emotional debate, people on both sides have a tendency to exaggerate their positions. I would really like to see compelling statistics one way or the other, as I feel at the moment a lot of this debate is being held in unscientific territory.
As a husky owner, I can definitely attest that different breeds have specific behavioural phenotypes associated with their breed’s genotype. My husky acts just like all of her husky friends which is pretty different to all of the other dogs we know of different breeds. I just don’t know that this factor outweighs the owner’s responsibility in raising and training them well. Even within a single breed, there’s often significant variation.
Dog ownership is honestly just so easy to fall into without being prepared, and there’s no way to ensure people will take responsibility for the life they’re buying. You’re literally just handing over money half the time, like a car or a TV.
I couldn’t handle anything with the energy of a husky or Aussie or shepherd, but if I hadn’t actively done the research and realized that, I would probably have a shepherd mix with too much energy right now. LSGs are right in the sweet spot for me with work, health and fitness level, etc.
There’s nothing stopping the average person from getting in over their head. Energy levels, space, and size are all considerations that people just handwave and “figure out later.”
For some people, life legitimately changes. Injured or sick suddenly and can’t take care of a doodle’s unrelenting energy anymore? Divorce, a death, a forced move into a smaller space, all sorts of legitimate things, but I don’t think these people’s dogs are the ones filling shelters. There’s no penalty for at-fault surrenders (rightly, to avoid more horrible options being taken), and there’s no required education to get a dog, it’s a recipe for disaster.
People aren’t going to put more thought into getting a dog than other parts of their lives, and people are constantly doing things without thinking nowadays, whether it’s car loans, buying unnecessary TVs/phones/computers, or similar. Overleveraged mentally and emotionally.
I think breeding legislation is the right move, but it would take a lot of will that’s not there and need provisions to handle oops litters and such without driving people underground.
For sure. I am not one of those people insistent on all pits being bad for the reasons you state (over-representation in statistics), but I also cannot believe that there isn’t some inclination for pits to exhibit aggressive behavior. I probably will never adopt a pit, but I have a friend who owns one (or a similar breed… not quite sure) but I love that dog.
For sure! I know a few pitties, too, and they are good dogs. It’s very much a “law of large numbers” type of thing. Likely more aggressive on average, but the answer is probably not breed bans and more likely restrictions on who can breed dogs (and maybe who can own certain dogs).
The problem is that if the city can’t even budget enough to feed these dogs, they’re certainly not going to be able to budget enforcing the breeding/ownership laws.
That is fair. Could be subsidized by the cost of breeding licenses, but the administrative burden would be greater. I feel like the breed ban administration would be difficult as well - since pitbulls aren’t really a breed, what constitutes one? Is it only American Pitbull Terriers? Because most pitbulls aren’t APTs, but some mix of bully breeds. Who would make that determination in each individual case? It’s a tough issue all around.
There seem to be two sides to this debate, where one side insists that these breeds are inherently aggressive and the other side insists it isn’t true.
Too many people believe whatever they want to believe.
Certainly some dogs of specific breeds are less aggressive than others but all dogs have been bred to have some sort of specific trait(s) (small, large, fluffy, “cute”, fast, intelligent, etc) and some breeds were explicitly bred to be aggressive.
People want to believe certain breeds aren’t inherently aggressive because it leads to exactly this type of problem.
I don’t know that it’s possible to quantify aggressiveness.
The solution is to heavily regulate breeding and associated sales because that’s exactly what creates the surplus of animals no one wants to take care of, and its something people should consider before buying any animals at all.
You’re generally right but pretty misinformed all the same.
One thing I can say is that if shelters are playing down aggressiveness etc, it’s because of stupid ‘no kill’ laws that forces them to keep the majority of these shit dogs and not be about to euthanize them. Thank all the animal lovers on Facebook who have no comprehension of the situation, have no interest in helping the dog themselves but they’ll sure as fuck tell anyone what they think if they don’t take care of the dog.
It’s a perpetual cycle, lifestyles of the poor and dumb.
The shelters that do kill dogs don’t just kill aggressive dogs though, they kill dogs they think nobody will want too. My boss has the most beautiful dog I’ve ever seen but he’s deaf so you have to communicate with him through hand movements. Before she got him the shelter was going to kill him in a few weeks. This wasn’t a Pit or any other dog some people think are inherently aggressive https://reddthat.com/pictrs/image/466aafb3-de52-4f14-8a5b-25179652f39a.jpegThe thought that they would have killed this dog if my boss’s boyfriend hadn’t noticed how special he was, haunts me every time I think about it.
Yeah cool but you’re kinda part of the problem. I’m sure he’s a lovely dog but the reality is probably 5% or less of dog owners are equipped to handle a dog like that. Most can’t train a normal dog, let alone a dog with a disability and it’s all sunshine and rainbows to have the dog go to someone’s home but the amount of returned and deaf dogs we get is horrendous because people just don’t want to deal with them.
I always adopt from shelters (or, once, a rescuer) anyway, but this makes me feel even more relieved that the county animal shelter is a no-kill shelter, space problems or not.
Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the “not kill” laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
Well you can’t really have evidence on something that is opinion from first hand experience.
The reason I disagree with them is that the majority of these dogs are going to spend a year or more essentially locked in a medium security dog prison before being put down because they were never suitable for readoption in the first place but you’ve got to play the game before they can be put down or wait for them to bite one of the handlers.
I agree, money would solve the entire problem but it’s a struggling industry and I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. Until it does, the no kill laws are hurting more animals than they save.
I understand. I’m living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn’t get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a “no killing” law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.
No kill at least in Australia means you can’t put animals to sleep due to over capacity, time frame etc. The only time they can be put down is when they’ve attacked or are showing high signs of aggression and the behaviour assessor finds they aren’t suitable for readoption.
At that point, it becomes a duty of care to put the animal down as it’s cruel to keep it in a kennel for the rest of its life and it can’t be trusted as a family pet.
I understand. I think you raise an interesting thought… I get where the law is coming from, but it also makes sense that the way it is treated now makes it so that dogs who would live their entire life in captivity only suffer more.
Thank you for your insight - I appreciate it and will think about it.
I don’t need to provide anything to you. I have plenty of industry data that’s not available to be shared, there’s plenty of public data for my state, but unless you’re in New South Wales, Australia - it will be irrelevant to you. This is a first world, world wide issue.
Go on to Google and search ‘dog attack, seizure and euthanasia rates’ for wherever you are, even better to specific pounds, animal facilities and rescues and do the math yourself.
Alternatively, go volunteer at your local shelter, you’re very concerned about these animals and every shelter desperately needs more help. Go help first hand and tell me how many of those dogs you’d let in your house with your kids and your loved ones.
because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
Agreed, but in reality, the choices are A) adopt dangerous dogs out to people, B) hold onto the dogs for their entire natural life, C) release them onto the streets, or D) euthanize some of them.
A is obviously not ideal; a human getting killed by a dog that they expected to be nice is worse than that dog dying. B would be great if shelters had infinite space and infinite funding, but realistically they have limited space and limited funding. That leaves us with C or D. Stray animals make more stray animals, they attack people, pets, and wildlife, they spread disease, and they tend to die horrible deaths. Euthanasia sucks, but the real alternatives are worse.
The real solution that no one wants to implement is to make it a crime to have dogs and cats that aren’t spayed or neutered, with extraordinarily rare exception. The only dogs that should be allowed to be bred are working dogs, and that should be closely regulated. Your shepherd/retriever mix, however cute he is, should not make more puppies as long as shelters are overflowing and turning animals away.
“But wouldn’t that lead to the extinction of these companion animals?” Be realistic–this law would never catch every single illegal breeder, and it would never prevent strays from breeding. Dogs and cats would not go extinct, they would just stop bringing shelters to capacity and beyond.
There are plenty of less common dog breeds that should be preserved that aren’t classified as “working dogs” any more.
Half the problem is that working breeds don’t make good sedentary pets, but some of them are pretty or give off a certain vibe, so people buy them and can’t take care of them. (See huskies, German Shepherds, Pit breeds, etc.)
Less-popular breeds with responsible clubs do just fine. Give clubs the ability to work with law enforcement to find and shut down irresponsible breeders, and the problem would be quickly resolved. Whether that’s licensing to breed or some other solution, it should be possible.
Before I say this, I feel it’s important to clarify that I have nothing against any individual dogs or breeds, and I don’t think any animals should have to be euthanized unless they’ve shown that they as an individual are dangerous.
That being said, I can’t think of a single breed besides border collies that has any valid reason to exist for another generation. If breeders were more worried about breeding for health instead of looks and behaviour, I might be okay with it, but I’ve seen too many pure bred dogs with debilitating health defects due to their breed. German Shepherds are beautiful dogs, but it isn’t worth making them suffer through hip displasia just to look at them.
I obviously don’t think every dog except for border collies should go extinct within the next 20 years, but a law that criminalizes breeding wouldn’t stop all dogs from breeding. There will never be a shortage of dogs for people to adopt, and a mutt is just as good, if not better, than a pure breed.
You should broaden your horizons. Many breeds concentrate on health. Behavior is important for many, too. Border collies couldn’t do a vast majority of service animal tasks, and they make terrible pets, especially for families with small kids, which improves outstanding and mental health for children. There are other sports like scent and racing (for fun, not gambling.) Not to mention therapy animals. Border collies would have challenges there, too.
Hmm, I get your point - I think you’re raising a compelling case.
I think, for me it comes down to the belief that only very, very few dogs are so aggressive and dangerous that no intervention will be able to change that. I (with great reluctance :) )agree that if a dog will never be able to get adopted, it is responsible to think if it would be more humane to euthasize him. But there are also far, far too many cases where dogs are killed because there just isn’t enough money or interest in them to give them special treatment and care so that they can e.g. trust humans again and not see them as danger.
I also agree, however, that it would probably be a good idea to implement limiting measures to the amount of dogs out there, so that the problem isn’t growing in scope - e.g. those you proposed. In the end though that can’t be the solution to the moral question “is it okay for us to kill dogs with whom we haven’t tried all in our power”, it can just be a supporting factor so that we can avoid making these decisions as much as possible.
I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs.
Well sure. Who’s gonna cover that funding gap? Not me.
So, what, let the excess or aggressive dogs starve but treat them nicely until they do? Let them run feral?
Or humanely put them down?
Edit: Y’all downvoting me should go volunteer at a local shelter for a while. I love dogs. I absolutely love dogs. But because of irresponsible owners and breeders we often have too many dogs and full shelters. Resources are not infinite.
It is cruel to keep dogs alive in increasingly smaller spaces, or hoard them, as we run out of room because you feel guilty about putting them down.
I’m not saying I’m opposed to rehoming, rescuing, or fostering dogs. Or opposed to shelters in general! I think those practices are important. Our current dog is a rehome.
Since the 70s massive strides have been made mostly by promoting fixing your dog in a timely fashion including low cost spay and neuter or “last litter” programs where they help you adopt out the puppies and fix the mom so they don’t have another.
Both kills and intake are a small fraction of what they were in the 70s down as much as 80% despite a concurrent increase in population in that time.
Well, I will be honest with you - I’d gladly pay my part so that an animal doesn’t get killed. Of course no one be able to fix the issue alone (except Elob Musk and Bezos, probably), but I think that we as a society can do better than kill animals because we don’t have enough money to keep them alive in a humane manner.
Pitbulls, pit mixes, and the occasional incredibly neurotic Chihuahua (rated the most aggressive breed when individual dog owners have been surveyed on their own dogs' behaviors).
I think there’s a link to owner training for the chihuahua thing. The smaller the dog is, the less an owner is likely to train them. They don’t think they have to.
If that where the reason, we would see a lot more complaints about dogs like dachshunds and pugs. Though I do think you're right that there is something specific about many people who choose to get Chihuahuas which involves them being the sort of irresponsible owner who doesn't do any training and treats it like an ornament rather than an animal.
It’s not just for dog fighting. It’s backyard breeders who are hoping to make a quick buck, so they get the easiest dogs they can access, which is almost always pits, sell the puppies for whatever they can get, and then dump any of the ones they can’t sell. I see them constantly on nextdoor, and it’s appalling. And the kind of people who buy pit puppies from some rando are also the kind of people who dump them when they get too big and “oh we can’t keep up with their energy.”
Yep, this is the answer. Tons of people are trying to cash in on dog breeding like beaniebabies. Frenchies, pitties (including XXL toadline monstrosities), random mixes (shitpoos, bernadoodles, cockadoodles, etc), etc. Breeding rights, stud fees, etc. are big business and essentially none of these “breeders” have any clue what they’re doing.
In the vast majority of places in the US, there are no requirements or certifications needed to breed dogs. And now people will pay insane amounts of money for frenchies with rare coat colors, or pitbulls that are bred solely to be huge and squat with no concern about temperament or health; so irresponsible, backyard breeders who either ignore or are completely ignorant of proper breeding practice and refuse to get or can’t afford proper genetic testing and medical care for their animals, are breeding for phenotypes like coat color or being insanely huge and squat and breeding in serious congenital defects and abnormalities.
Then either buyers are stuck with these shitty, genetically fucked up dogs they paid like $5k-10k for that now need thousands more in veterinary care to treat all the issues bred into the dog (not to mention parvo, parasites, heartworms, etc.). Or the breeder’s little business collapses when they realize that they can’t afford to continue operating their shitty puppymill due to the fact that dog breeding is expensive and their fucked up breeds can’t give natural birth and so all need c-sections. But, it’s usually the first one because there are no shortage of buyers willing to pay stupid amounts of money and trust the “breeders” because they assume they’re experts.
So people often end up dumping the dogs when they realize they can’t care for them medically or are aggressive or whatever else, while backyard breeders continue to pump out fucked up dogs for profit.
… I’m sorry but… shitpoos? That’s hilarious. Though I imagine breeders would probably use a different term. I can’t imagine saying ‘I breed shitpoos’ with a straight face.
Yup. It needs to be a crime punishable by fines and prison time. The average lifetime cost of owning a dog can be as high as $50,000. Use that as a baseline for fining people who breed dogs while shelters are turning them away.
The pitbull breed can still be saved, we just have to consistently kill those who show aggressive behavior.
Edit: all right pitbulls are not all bad,some of them are even brave, I heard a story of how one died, a kid was trapped in a burning house, the pitbull seeing that, bravely broke into the house, so it could maul a child one more time.
Wtf are these downvotes for. Good for you, respecting the lives of your friends and family.
I know some people just don’t have a choice, and that breaks my heart, but living in the US, I suspect it’s a matter of mismatched priorities with others.
Companies and pet owners both need to understand that lives shouldn’t be on the table when “trimming the budget.”
Inflation is a massive issue. My cat’s food has doubled in price, and litter is up 50%. And if one of them needs to see the vet, we essentially would have to put them down as vet bills for any treatment is insane. Just basic bloodwork costs hundreds now.
I use a care card. No interest financing. I paid for my good bois ccl repair with it. Paid it off two weeks ago then my other dog needed a stitch in her eyelid so we loaded that sucker back up.
It’s likely that your vet was bought up by a corporation and has been inflating costs. It’s getting harder to do, but search for independently owned and operated vets and only go to them. Your costs will go down and you’ll get better pet care.
Yeah mine is so cheap, and will go so far out of the way to help my dogs. Way out in the sticks. By sticks I mean these guys do half livestock/half pets.
Look into the “equine bedding pellets” for a litter replacement. We use it for our two cats and there’s little to no smell, it’s easily cleanable, and the “waste” is dry sawdust. Best part, at least in my area, is that a 40lb bag is $6.
It’s not about how cute and cuddly they are. It’s not news stories of them attacking kids. It’s a look at the cultural narratives surrounding them and the actual data about Pitbull attacks.
No. I am tired of pitbull lobby. When they get angry they have the ability to cause more damage than any other breed and they get hella angry. You can be pretty freaken awful to the vast majority of breeds intentionally or otherwise and they will just endure it, not pits. And kids are freaken stupid. They will do things dogs aren’t comfortable with. Then you get a dead kid. They were breed for a long time to be fighting dogs and mission successful.
Thank you! I will definitely read up on the listed studies once the holidays are over.
I glanced at a few of the most recent studies, and something’s that stood out to me were that they delt with single locations. Usually large hospitals in or around urban areas. The studies focusing on a single geographical location without looking into confounding factors, since some of the studies aren’t about breed in the first place, limit the usefulness of their data on attacking dog breeds.
It does point towards a trend, I am not disputing that. Maybe this is just one or two of the studies that I looked at. Anyways, have safe and pleasant holidays!
Don’t be a a bigot, one baby snack once in a while and pities are the most peaceful animals on earth, did I already told you that they are nanny dogs? Anyways just put a crown flower on them, the smell of flowers helps with the bloodlust.
The data shows that nearly every single fatal dog attack was by pitbull, with rottweilers being a distant second and basically no attacks from the other breeds
I think a large bit of this is who statistically breeds them and why. They’re a popular intimidation breed for lowlives and dog-fighter scum.
Pits can be the sweetest of animals, but I think a large part of this correlation is the simple fact that dealer houses happen to have no interest in killer poodles or pugs to keep rivals and cops at bay.
There are other dogs that are as aggressive or even more aggressive than Pitbulls, but the problem is that Pitbulls just don’t want to let go when they attack. A pitbull attack typically doesn’t stop until something is dead or severely maimed. The two main ways to stop a Pitbull attack are to kill the dog, or choke it unconscious. That’s why when they do attack it is so much more likely to be fatal.
We definitely should require all Pitbulls to be spayed and neutered, and make them illegal to breed.
Maybe part of the reason is they’re the most common dog?
The paper in the video linked showed German Shephards attacked the most people (all reported attacks, not just fatal).
Another problem is pitbulls aren’t a well-defined breed with clear, “pure” bloodlines. There are a lot of different kinds of “pitbulls.” Some pitbulls definitely are very aggressive, some are not at all.
I have a smaller pitbull (adopted from a shelter), and I’ve never seen her act aggressively toward a person. She is well behaved at dog parks and kennels with free-play with other dogs.
One issue is that the data cited often is collected from news stories with the breed of the dog being guessed at more often than not. This leads to two significant problems. One is that any dog attack that’s reported on will probably be severe. Other dog bites that are serious but non-sensational will not be counted. Two is that the dogs breed is haphazardly guessed at by either reporters or involve parties. Simply looking at a dog, especially a mix, it can be difficult to ascertain the breed and so one might just call them a Pitbull as a guess. Although I can’t find data I would assume that pit bulls are used more often than other breeds for dog fighting, but I am ready to look at statistics and sources rather than simply confirm my own biases.
The point is the data comes from newspapers and media, which inaccurately reports dog breeds consistently, over reports certain breeds and under reports others. Through the 80s and 90s the media fearmongered about pitbull attacks, and this was mostly linked to the drug war and racism. So, there is no good data to go on. All the “studies” just cite these media reports.
It’s why the CDC and Humane Society oppose breed-specific legislation.
Edit: Downvotes don’t make this comment wrong. It just means you’re trying to suppress a truth you don’t like. The fact that the Humane Society and CDC are on my side says something about the quality of the evidence in this case. Are you all also anti-vaxxers and Q-Anon followers?
The pit bull discussion never ends. Pit bulls are like guns: objectively bad for society but some people really want to have them so we all have to suffer the consequences. Pit bull lovers don’t care about all the victims, they only care about their personal needs and “rights”. You can’t convince someone not to be selfish so the entire discussion doesn’t make any sense.
Yet it’s still almost never a Great Dane, Bernese, St Bernard, Mastiff, or a Newfoundland. Pitbulls are 20% of dogs, yet [this study found they make up 53% of dog bite injuries requiring ER treatment.]) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100808/)
The fact is, they are disproportionally more likely to case injury or death.
Except the major source everyone cites is one psycho who composes his data exclusively by going through news reports of dog attacks and determining it was a pit bull if any news source called it a pit bull rather than any scientific methodology whatsoever
Super reliable! You know, the same news sources that call every 1-hand bang-bang-thingy a “glock”, a wooden two-hand bang-bang-thingy an AK-47, and a black shovel an Assault-Rifle-15-mall-sweeping-military-style-bump-stock-war-machine assault weapon.
Yeah I’m sure they’re great at differentiating dog breeds too! XD
This has been said so many times it’s boring: chihuahua with a bad owner never killed anyone.
Also: would you support mandatory background checks, permits and training for pit bull owners? To make sure that they only go to good owners…
What is ignorant about it? I see a ton of facts. I’ve long said pit bulls are the assault rifles of the dog world. Much like it is easy to claim every gun and every dog can be dangerous with the wrong owner, somehow when a tragedy happens is is disproportionately one particular type at the center.
That’s why mental health checks should be given to gun owners, outlawing them just makes us vulnerable to outside attacks. The problem isn’t too many people with guns, the problem is too many mentally unhealthy people with guns and not enough mentally healthy with guns. Most mass shootings wouldn’t happen if everyone they were shooting had guns themselves.
Dogs on the other hand are completely different. Your racially biased when it comes to pitbulls, no question about it. Do you see that more crimes are committed by minorities and think it’s because of their skin color too?
You’re literally saying one type of dog is more dangerous than others. What other word is there to describe that than racist? I wasn’t accusing you of being racist towards other humans, I was asking if you were. My point was that you are doing the same thing “intellectual” racists do to justify their bias against specific groups. You can’t deny your racist against pitbulls though, that’s your entire argument.
Lmao so I’m using the wrong word? You don’t have anything else to add to your side of the argument? I’m sorry for saying pitbull racist instead whatever word you would prefer. Please ignore that and give your rebuttal for the point I was making. When people revert to semantics, it’s a pretty good indicator that they don’t have any value to add to their argument and are grasping at straws. I hope that’s not the case with you though.
There is no works for it because it is a concept that doesn’t exist.
Even you admit selective breeding is a thing. Border collies herd things by instinct. Huskys love snow and pulling things. Golden retrievers love fetch. Pit bulls have an extremely powerful bite. It’s just how those breeds are.
I agree that a pitbull bite is more dangerous than most other dog bites but that doesn’t mean they are more likely to bite. Pitbulls behavior like every other dog is determined by the training it gets and how much energy it is able to expel. Any dog that is pent up and not properly trained could bite someone. It’s true that a pitbull bite is a lot worse than a Chihuahuas, but if the owner can’t train their dog they shouldn’t even have one no matter the breed.
I don’t disagree entirely (although I think an attack instinct kicks is a lot faster in pit bulls), but that’s my point. A pit bull bite is simply inherently more lethal. Since we are not going to license and regulate dog owners and monitor their training efforts, the best alternative is not having dangerous breeds.
Not all pitbulls are work dogs. It’s not even a real breed first of all but the dogs that we consider pitbulls come from all kinds, they have work dogs and dogs that were bred for homes. If any kind of dog should be outlawed, it should be work dogs in general. To single out such a broad kind of dog, like “pitbull” is ignorant.
Which breed of dog are you talking about though? Because “pitbull” is not a breed. Do you mean all of the 3-5 breeds ignorant people consider pitbulls? Or do you just mean one of them, if so which one?
No, the breed’s most people consider pit bulls. Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and so on, as well as mixes.
Stop claiming people are ignorant just because they disagree with you. That is what is truly ignorant.
I hate pit bulls with a passion and would gladly kill every single one. The world would be a safer place.
You are a bigot and sound exactly the same as the people who fought for racist slavery. One is a lot worse but they’re both bad and come from ridiculous opinions.
I would want to kill the dogs owner not the dog if that happened because I understand it’s a product of it’s environment. There are no bad dogs just bad people. How you can’t see that is beyond me.
“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.” Is the definition for “Racism” on Google.
It’s obviously specifically directed to humans but when I was using that word I was applying it to non-humans. I imagine it’s hard for you to take the irrelevant parts specifically about humans out and use the remaining definition that is relevant on a broader spectrum. But I’m looking forward to you explaining why that’s stupid.
An idea so stupid doesn’t need more of a response. Pit bulls were selectively bred for thousands of years for fighting, bull baiting, and killing rats. Very different that human races (and as my Afro American studies prof liked to tell us, there is no race but the human race.)
Okay, that’s a really good point that I can’t think of an argument for. I’m also relieved that you don’t have the same ignorance for people and are actually apparently well educated about the subject. To your professors point, that’s exactly why racism is pure ignorance.
I just got a puppy from a girl who couldn’t keep it. She’s clearly got some history of abuse but today she was so happy and even confident enough for play fighting gently!
Edit: since the top comment mentions pitbulls, it’s probably worth noting that my puppy is also a pitbull and doesn’t have an aggressive bone in her body! She gets scared easily but is never aggressive about it! She’s also supernaturally well behaved. I’ve never seen a dog before her who took so well to a leash and my mom’s a heckin dog breeder! She got off the leash today because I scared her when we were jumping around in the back yard and just immediately ran to the door of the house. Scared the heck out of me only to immediately be relieved that what she does is just automatically best case scenario! There’s no way I have any chance of outrunning her. She seems to be trying to be social with the cat, but cat is having absolutely none of it. She loves animal crackers but won’t mess with her bone that’s stuffed with some kind of mush. She also has an extra toe! It’s super weird but seems mostly healthy and we’re gonna ask a vet about it.
Yo, I can talk about her for several more paragraphs. Just give the word.
Her name is Sasha and she is grey. She’s an adorable little chunk and weighs about 40lbs. There’s a lot of varying information about how old that might mean she is and I think she might also be a kind of mix so that complicates it further. She gets scared fairly early. She’s growled at me a couple times. She’s so super polite when she wants something! I almost got her to bark once. At lvl 24 she’ll evolve into a houndoom! We’re practically all about positive reinforcement, but she’s super receptive to a gentle “no”. I think someone at her old place might have cut her whiskers. She has an extra toe! You can see it in the picture!
The poor, dumb, and bleeding heart are still grifting and getting grifted I see.
I think I’ve met a single pitt owner who didn’t want to breed their dog first.
It’s almost definitely some Freudian shit where they’re just as poor and disadvantaged as that dog and one of the few things that they think will make them happy is being able to have kids.
Nobody but other poor fuckers who can’t afford the dog wants the puppies, they’re too poor and busy to train them, and they just get worse and worse every time they’re forced to breed with another one of their cousins since nobody else is going near.
Jesus Christ! Why do people blame the dogs when it’s the owners responsibility. I have a pitbull that I took in from the pandemic. He is the sweetest dog in the world to me and my family. He is patient and gentle with my kids. We got a French bulldog puppy for Christmas. He is so gentle with her. If you come in my house and I am there. He will love on you and want pets.
But, if you come over and I act suspicious about you he won’t be pleasant. I keep a muzzle on him in public because he’s really protective of myself and my family. I am under no illusion that he loves everyone like us.
Here is the other thing. I have grown up with dogs most of my life. I’ve had Jack russle terriers. I’ve had Great Danes. I’ve had boxers. Ive had French bulldogs, and pitbulls.
Of all the dogs I’ve owned pitbulls are the hardest to train. They are not a beginner dog. You have to remember that just like people they have moods and personalities independent of your own. Just because that dog loves and is nice to the pack it lives around everyday doesn’t mean that same courtesy is extended to strangers.
And THIS is why pit types overflow the shelters and cause the vast majority of injuries. The delusion in pit owners is tangible.
Just because the dog is sweet with you and your family, doesn’t make it sweet or safe. Nor does it mean it will stay that way if circumstances align badly. There are hundreds of dog breeds who are either genuinely sweet in all circumstances, or unable to cause serious damage if they aren’t sweet.
People are getting on your case because your comments are full of cognitive dissonance. You say it’s irresponsible owners, while somehow missing the evidence that you defending the sweetness of a dog that is clearly aggressive in public makes you one of the irresponsible owners.
Sure, muzzling your dog is a modicum of self- awareness, but these dogs simply shouldn’t be around nearly as much as they are. People going on the internet and touting their sweetness is encouraging irresponsible people to breed, buy, and adopt them.
The problem is people, not any particular breed. Any large breed can be dangerous if trained to be. That pits statistically bite more is just a function of human culture, not anything innate in the breed.
“Any large breed can be dangerous if trained to be” is vastly different from “this breed is dangerous unless trained not to be, and even then, it’s iffy.”
Anyone who thinks that a breed of dogs bred specifically for fighting has no innate traits for fighting has no idea what they are talking about.
Pits are bred for fighting other dogs, not people. All large breeds are dangerous if not trained properly. Dogs are apex predators and bringing them into their home doesn’t change that.
I’m sure an animal bred to fight makes sure it only fights the four-legged ones. 🙄
Not all large breeds are dangerous in the same way. Trying to pretend they are against all the evidence to the contrary is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Any dog is capable of maiming people. A full face muzzle and a pinch collar keeps that from happening. So, like I said. If people took the proper precautions. Then a dog attack can’t happen. But they think that their dog loves everyone like the dog loves its family.
So if a dog attack is fully preventable. Then it is the owners fault.
Nah, pit bulls in particular are highly capable of mauling people and other dogs and children and babies. You people all sound like idiot parents whose idiot children act out at school. Youre in denial saying “my little billy would never rip the face off of another child he’s an angel!”. I bet he can be a great dog day to day, but one day that switch is gonna flip
What the actual hell are you talking about. My dog very well might kill someone if I let it. I literally just got done typing that. I am under no illusion that he is safe around anyone other than the people that live under my roof. That is unless I take the proper precautions. Once again proper precautions mean a full face muzzle and pinch collar. That also means having your dog leashed in public at all times.
However, and this may be where you are confused. It’s a cultural thing here. People where I live take their homestead SERIOUSLY. There is a procedure to knocking on doors uninvited here. You knock/ring doorbell then you walk back out into the yard. Don’t stand on the porch.
Now some of these things may or may not be true, but you should always assume all are true. When you knock on that door you should assume that you’re going to hear an angry dog. You should assume that the door will only open as far as the chain will allow. You should also assume that the person behind that door has a gun in arms reach. If none of those things happen great, but better to be safe than sorry.
People around here are wary of strangers. I trust my dog not to bite me or mine. I don’t trust him to not bite you or yours, but as long as you don’t come in my house when I’m not here. You have nothing to worry about.
With that being said. I don’t want my dog to like you. There is literally no reason for anyone other than my family to be in my house.
Man you’d really lose your shit if you knew what I did to people that call me uninvited. Ya know, scammers, bill collectors, and stuff like that. I don’t get many of those now. I think it becomes a legal issue within the company.
There is literally no reason for anyone other than my family to be in my house.
You may feel this way, but it is objectively not true. Police, EMTs, and firefighters might all find themselves with the legal jurisdiction to enter your home, and having an attack dog just leads to liability for you should that happen.
If you are arguing that your dog is a weapon that will protect your house, you’re acknowledging the potential for your dog to use violence against someone without your direction. This means that you’re leaving the dog, who has no understanding of the legal limits of self defense and defense of property, with making the decision on whether or not to use lethal force.
It is not surprising, given that this is apparently the philosophy of many pitbull owners, that so many maulings occur, since it literally just takes one instance of the dog feeling sufficiently aggravated to lead to an attack, and this is somehow treated as a feature and not a defect.
Bro I just read the first paragraph. So, I’m going to stop you right there. We don’t call 911 in my house, and before you say “but what if…”. We don’t call 911 in my house. Cops would have to have a warrant. Back in my crazy days. I drug a dying woman out of my house. I put her in my car and drove her to the emergency room just so I didn’t have to call 911. I don’t call 911.
NO ONE belongs in my house without a warrant. If someone has a warrant then I have bigger problems than my dog. See I explained all this in a post here that got deleted yesterday for being off topic. People down here are weird about their homestead. I think it’s a cultural thing. But kids are given a pass teenagers get threatened when walking through peoples property. Adults may get shot. You don’t go on another person’s property down here without a good excuse.
But I’m going to tell you like I told the other guy. This has dragged on for over 24 hours now. I’m going to go hang out with my family. I have a gingerbread house to build, and baldurs gate 3 to finish. I hope you have a happy holiday.
Any dog is capable of killing people, but you are deluding yourself if you think that a pitbull is not significantly better equipped to kill than any other dog breed. Gameness is a real trait. There’s a reason the Internet isn’t full of retrievers and cocker spaniels nearly killing horses.
Bro… it has occurred to me that I have stepped into god’s special ed class. You are the second or third person to reply to my comments without reading my comments. I said that I agree. Pitbulls are dangerous and very capable of killing.
However, as someone that has only been attacked by a Shiba Inu and a Rottweiler. I have broken up a few different dogs fighting. I can speak from experience that really all dogs should be muzzled in public.
If you want me to say that a pitbull is more capable of killing. Then you’ll have to tell me than what. Chihuahuas? Absolutely! Irish wolfhound or Rottweiler? Maybe not.
What I’m saying is people should be held responsible if their dog attacks someone. I am confident mine can’t attack someone. Not because he’s super chill or something. But because I make it so his bitey end can’t bite you. I’m beginning to think you guys don’t know what a muzzle is. I’m talking about a cage that covers his entire mouth.
Like this thread is making me lose faith in humanity. I’ve agreed with you guys this whole time. Please show me where I said that pitbulls are safe. Seriously, please show me.
If you want me to say that a pitbull is more capable of killing. Then you’ll have to tell me than what. Chihuahuas? Absolutely! Irish wolfhound or Rottweiler? Maybe not.
I literally said “any other dog breed.” Pit bulls are uniquely capable of killing because of a combination of their bite strength and gameness. I agree that if you have a muzzle on a dog, it becomes incapable of biting. That’s cool. I never said “your pit bull is more likely to kill someone than any other dog, even when it has its muzzle on and that other dog doesn’t.”
So, here’s where I will disagree with you. I admit I had to lookup gameness for a definition. Gameness speaks to their pain threshold and tenacity, but not of viciousness. I’m here to tell you from experience. All dogs over a certain size have a ridiculously high pain threshold. As far as bite force pitbulls aren’t even in the top 10.
But when you get right down to it. It still always comes down to irresponsible owners. Even if what you said was right. If people that owned them took the proper steps to prevent attacks then attacks wouldn’t happen. People should treat their dogs like a loaded gun. Make sure the safety is on in public.
Dog attacks are preventable. It’s not hard. But anyway. Yall have a good night. I’m going to play video games with the woman.
It still always comes down to irresponsible owners.
It cannot only come down to irresponsible owners. Like, a baseball bat is just as capable of killing someone as a gun, but it does not only come down to how irresponsible their owners are–an irresponsible baseball bat owner is far less likely to kill someone with their bat than an irresponsible gun owner. People should not have to treat their dogs like a loaded gun. I have never seen someone talk like that about a border collie, or a dalmation, or a golden retriever. I certainly don’t see my dad’s saint bernard/black lab mix like that.
Again, I don’t have anything against specific dogs. I don’t think all pit bulls need to die just for being pit bulls. But I also don’t see why there needs to be another generation of any breed of dog that needs to be treated like a gun. Get them neutered, enjoy the time you have with them, and then get a mutt in 20 years.
Kirstie Bernard owned her pit bulls for eight years before they mauled her two young children to death. I would love to see you try to tell her to her face that it was because she was an irresponsible owner.
If she was irresponsible by not having her dogs muzzled at all times when they were with their family, then it sounds like maybe the breed has some problems, because that doesn’t happen with any other breed. German shepherds have also mauled children, but that’s typically when they’re not being supervised. Bennard’s dogs were not alone with her children, and the attack didn’t happen while they were asleep.
She was irresponsible for not seeing the signs sooner. I guarantee that she ignored warning signs leading up to it. Or, didn’t know what signs to look for. Unfortunately, all we have to go off of is her account, and she isn’t going to admit that she ignored signs of hostility.
When my oldest was born my partner had a dog that she had had for 6 years. It wasn’t a pitbull it was some mutt. But when my oldest was learning to walk the dog would act like he couldn’t see him. He would walk right into my son and knock him down.
That is a bad sign. He had to go. Just because your dog loves you doesn’t mean that it loves strangers, and new kids that weren’t there when the dog first came into the house are the same as strangers to that dog. You have to reevaluate the situation.
But in all seriousness. This has gone on for over 24 hours at this point. I have my own family and dogs to hang out with. You don’t have to take my word for it. After all I’m just some weirdo on the internet speaking from their own experience. For all I know she could be that 1 in a million freak accident.
What signs did she miss? How could you possibly know there were signs to miss? If you want to fill in the blanks of the scenario with your own idea of how it went down, then how are we supposed to have a meaningful conversation?
All we have to go off of is her account, and the accounts of so many others who have been mauled by pits. It seems to me that it’s easier to explain the multitude of attacks by the breed as a result of the traits that we know that humans bred into them than it is to say that every bad dog owner happens to get a pit bull, and every pit bull that attacks someone happens to have had a bad owner. Other breeds have shitty owners too, and only one breed tops every chart in violence.
Well, just like you said. I cant argue that she did miss signs. Just like you cant argue that she didn’t miss signs. You can say that the high number of attacks means something. I can say that my personal experience means something.
But in the end we’re both full of shit. Without having controlled studies we’re re just doing the best we can with the information we have. Truthfully, and with all due respect probably none of the people here are qualified to actually contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.
Plus, this topic has been ongoing for me, for over 24 hours. If you don’t like a breed of dog that’s your prerogative. As an American I support your right to dislike a breed of dog. But I am going to spend the rest of my evening hanging out with my family building a ginger bread house then playing some more Baldur’s Gate 3.
One more time. I wish you a happy holiday. I hope this coming year is everything you hoped it would be and more.
Sorry I didn’t actually take on what you were talking about in regards to some breeds being more dangerous. If we’re talking size small dogs are less dangerous, but once you get over a certain size, any dog is dangerous.
The problem is that pitbulls do more attacks. But is that due to the breed, or is it a situation where they are put in a position to attack people more. I tried and failed to talk about this yesterday. But here and in a lot of poor communities people buy a few pitbulls and put them outside their house for protection. These dogs are not socialized and aren’t pets like you and I think of them. These same irresponsible owners don’t secure their dogs very well so they get loose a lot.
Why do these people buy pitbulls? Because they have a reputation and they are CHEAP. My local humane society had to start checking up on pitbulls they adopted out because this was such a problem.
My point is that without having knowledge of all the attack incidents. The only thing I can infer is that a lot of people have pitbulls that shouldn’t.
Umm, we definitely don’t need a muzzle for the family labs when in public. That absolutely says something about the breed.
I’m glad you’re happy with your dog and work hard to keep it happy and peaceful, but that simply does not change the fact that it is an inherently dangerous breed (that has been intentionally bred for aggression).
Btw, I absolutely think that a dog’s owner bears full responsibility for them. But that doesn’t mean it’s a safe breed we should be promoting, either.
Citizens! Consumers! The economy is rebounding, because an ever dwindling number of large corporations are extracting wealth from workers at such an obscene rate that the GDP is going up!
Also uh, even though they have a bad reputation for many mostly valid reasons, Pitbulls and other such guard/attack dog type breeds remain hugely popular with the non terminally online and non boutique, esoteric dogs as a status symbol crowd, many times /because they want an aggressive dog/ as they live in areas of high crime, due to aforementioned collapsing economy/society.
Explain… what exactly, 10-15 years ago? Overcrowded animal shelters?
Sure, you find the numbers on animal shelter capacity nationwide going back 20 years, divided up by breed, how many stayed how long, how many were refused etc…
Was there an overcrowding of animal shelters 10 to 15 years ago, I dont even know.
If there was, then well 10 to 15 years ago was the Housing Bubble / Financial Panic / Great Recession, so that would also make sense.
Your weird ass rambling of economic collapse being a cause for dogs going to shelters or some nonsense…you seem like the type to hold a bullhorn and tell people their problems.
They are also large dogs that can be 60-100+ pounds each, which for a lot of people is too much dog. It seems a case of people looking at a cute puppy and not researching what a full grown version looks like. People do the same thing with iguanas and fish too.
Mastiffs are extremely protective of their owners and it gives people the impression they are aggressive. Same with the Cane Corso. Both dogs are more defensive then aggressive, but the potential is still there especially when owned by people who easily dump dogs. You know they didn’t bother training them which is the main issue
Mastiffs have historically been guard dogs, protecting homes and property, although throughout history they have been used as hunting dogs, war dogs and for blood sports, such as fighting each other and other animals, including bulls, bears and even lions.
Dunno what you define as aggressive but they definitely were bred to be.
You gotta remember that half of all people are stupider than the average person, and it only takes like the dumbest 10% to be like “he’s not cute anymore so I don’t want him” for shelters to start filling up
People who don’t know what they are getting into, and as soon as they encounter a situation of their own creating… they bail because its hard. Pit bull owner (AST rescue mutt), they are not a beginner breed, they require ensuring that there is a hierarchy in the house and force an understanding of that. They are stubborn, hard headed, and amazing dogs (Tiptoe is a hurricane of tongues). We have a 6 yo at home, and I have to force his training and training for her. It’s a lot of work, and most people are allergic to work when it becomes inconvenient to them.
Aggression is something that is there genetically and you have to work against it. Again that’s work, but you will find that any dog that hasn’t been traumatized (and some that have… again love my tip) leans naturally to happiness, not aggression.
Short answer is that people are awful, and because of that most of the time the dog suffers. That should be recognized for what it is.
I completely agree with this! I love Pit Bulls and have experienced a lot of them being the most loving dogs ever. Watch out for that whip/tail when they are happy! They are the Nanny Dog for a reason.
You really need to understand a breed and see if it fits your lifestyle. I could not have my neighbors Australian Shepherd or my other neighbors Belgian Malinois those dog are way to smart for me and need to be very active and always doing things to work their brains or they get bored and get into shit
Literally NOTHING in the house can be at tail height. The tree looks weird, and it initially catches people off guard, since it looks like we only decorated half the tree. But it an adjustment we are happy to make. and I think that’s the key part of the conversation. We don’t have a dog. We have a member of the family that we adjust our lives around. Give her an environment where she feels safe, give her the exercise she needs, and all of the blankets that she can nest in.
Good on you for recognizing that. I think one of the main problems is that people don’t do enough real research to understand what they’re getting into. If you think you’re ready for a dog, find somebody who has a dog that is just outside of the puppy stage and ask to dog sit. Not only will the owners often be happy for a little bit of a break time, but you will get to experience what that particular breed is like at the peak of it being that breed. You will not change your families lifestyle to fit your dog (you will but you cant start out that direction), you have to find something that is compatible with how you live. For us that means that as soon as you set down on a chair or couch its tugs time (approx 2-3 hours a day). We only play tugs with the rope bones (no other toys) and when anyone in the family gives the command “drop it” she drops it (or its time of the other command “all done”) both of which are said once firmly with the hand signals.
That’s the other thing I don’t think a lot of people understand, and I think it leads to many of the dogs ending back in shelters. The period of cuteness wears off into the portion where your dog is learning to be a dog. It is the hardest part of owning the dog, and you have to be super diligent about training at that phase. Because that’s the time where the dog can learn all of the bad habits that it will carry for the rest of its life. Not to say that you can’t come back from it, but it’s a lot harder.
Pit bulls aren’t in any meaningful fashion becoming banned throughout the nation. Of the 338M Americans 215M live in states that ban breed specific regulation outright.
Pit bulls aren’t illegal in the remaining states its just not illegal itself to ban them. Only a tiny minority of counties and zero states ban pit bulls.
Add comment