What pit bull activism says about our culture

[Ad Orientem]

Last weekend in Saanich, B.C., a 16-day old baby was mauled by her family’s pit bull-Rottweiler mix on the same day as an elderly man was attacked by two pit bull dogs outside a Langley, B.C. dollar store. News like this is reported, but commentary-wise, dog-related public safety is virtually an orphan topic. Which is why I adopted it.

Public-safety regulation is usually linked to what is deemed a critical number of injuries or deaths. Between 1971 and 1980, for example, Ford produced three million Pintos. Due to a peculiarity in the Pinto’s structural design, its fuel tank was prone to puncture in rear-end collisions. Consequently, over Pinto’s 10 years in operation, 26 people died in fires that a better design could have prevented. Ford was forced to retire the model in the interest of public safety.

By coincidence, there are about three million pit bull type dogs in North America today, representing 6% of all breeds. But about 26 people die from pit bull type dogs in the U.S. every year (out of about 40 from all 400 breeds combined). Pit bull type dogs maul, maim, disfigure or dismember hundreds more. By no coincidence, when pit bulls were few in number — 200,00 before 1970, most clustered in marginal districts — dogbite-related fatalities in the general population were freakishly rare. In my youth, when middle-class neighbourhood dogs ran loose, and average families didn’t own fighting dogs, years went by without a single fatality. If pit bull type dogs were cars, they’d be long gone. But unlike car victims, pit bull tragedies don’t arouse public outrage.

Read the rest here...
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... r-culture/

[stone]

Coffee (who sometimes posts on here) is a professional dog trainer and also a big fan of pit bulls. He  is the author of Pit Bulls Vs. Zombies (Prologue To A Zombie Apocalypse Book 1)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bulls-Zombies-P ... B009I6E2OM

He's the one to give us the pit bull's side of the story.

[Benko]

Go visit a humane shelter and look at the pit bulls.  the vast majority are very sweet dogs (at least to people).  There are certainly dogs which are inherently agressive e.g. AKitas, but Pit Bulls do not seem to be like that.  Obviously there are some hyper agressive Pit Bulls.  I'm no expert but perhaps they are trained that way, or perhaps a small percentage are naturally that way, I don't know. 

[Ad Orientem]

Go visit a humane shelter and look at the pit bulls.  the vast majority are very sweet dogs (at least to people).  There are certainly dogs which are inherently agressive e.g. AKitas, but Pit Bulls do not seem to be like that.  Obviously there are some hyper agressive Pit Bulls.  I'm no expert but perhaps they are trained that way, or perhaps a small percentage are naturally that way, I don't know.

Do you believe the statistics cited in the article are either wrong or in some way grossly misleading?

[Benko]

"Given the statistics — pit bull type dogs are six times more likely to kill humans than all other breeds combined"

"Criminals favour them"


So she's given you a clue i.e. the second quote at least partially explains the first i.e. criminals likely own and train their dogs to be agressive/kill. 

Most Pit Bulls that I have met (probably 10) were all sweet.  Of course the ones that the humane society could not socialize were probably destroyed so I didn't meet a complete sample.  Still if many are sweet dogs it makes no sense to destroy them all.   

"By no coincidence, when pit bulls were few in number "
Correlation does not equal causation (assuming her facts are correct).

[Ad Orientem]

I don't think anyone is proposing some kind of canine genocide and exterminating the breed. I do think that there is conclusive evidence that the breed is dangerous, and should be treated as such. Most states have legal restrictions on private citizens owning exotic and dangerous animals. For instance most states have restrictions on people owning venomous snakes. This is because they are obviously dangerous. Every year dozens of people are bitten by them, and a few actually die.

I can see no rational argument for why similar restrictions should not be applied to an animal, that every year injures or kills ten times as many people as all of the venomous snakes in the contiguous 48 states.

[Benko]

I do think that there is conclusive evidence that the breed is dangerous,

OK what is the evidence?

[Ad Orientem]

Dozens of people killed and hundreds mauled annually. If that's not evidence then there is no such thing.

[Coffee]

It's bullshit.

I've written nine dog training books, produced five dog training dvds, have owned three different dog training companies in three different cities, have trained dogs for police work, personal protection, tracking, obedience, search and rescue, behavior modification, agility, etc... My newsletter is read by over 65,000 dog owners every week and we're getting ready to launch our podcast, "Katz Talks Dogs".  So-- the following may be just my opinion, but it is an educated opinion:

"Pit bull" is a media term.  Just like, "assault rifle."

I've trained or have overseen the training of literally thousands of "pit bulls" over the years. I've personally owned 5 or 6 myself. Yes, they are an extreme breed.  Yes, some of the bloodlines of the APDT and the Staffy can have a tendency toward DOG AGGRESSION.  I.E., Dog-to-dog aggression, not dog-to-human aggression). 

The real fundamental issue that's not being addressed is why the OWNERS of ANY dog that can be dangerous (irrelevent of breed) are not being aggressively prosecuted if they're not keeping their dogs properly confined-- and instead a certain breed is being scape-goated?

At our local dog training company, we're seeing way more German Shepherd Dogs, Australian Cattle dogs and Huskys with aggression issues than pit bulls.  And the pit bulls that typically have aggression issues are not aggressive to humans, but to other dogs.  Sure, there are exceptions, but no more than other breeds.

I once talked to Larry Welborne, a semi-famous newspaper reporter for the OC Register.  He told me that if they get a call about a pit bull biting a child and it turns out that the dog was actually a labrador or a golden retriever-- they don't do the story.  Nobody wants to read about a Golden who bit a kid.  Nobody cares.  But everybody gets excited if it's a "pit bull."

The other problem that the breed is cursed with is that, because it's muscular, it attracts knuckle-head owners.  These people should not own any breed of dog, let alone a pit bull.

Check this out:
http://www.pickthepit.com/

[Ad Orientem]

It's bullshit.

I've written nine dog training books, produced five dog training dvds, have owned three different dog training companies in three different cities, have trained dogs for police work, personal protection, tracking, obedience, search and rescue, behavior modification, agility, etc... My newsletter is read by over 65,000 dog owners every week and we're getting ready to launch our podcast, "Katz Talks Dogs".  So-- the following may be just my opinion, but it is an educated opinion:

"Pit bull" is a media term.  Just like, "assault rifle."

I've trained or have overseen the training of literally thousands of "pit bulls" over the years. I've personally owned 5 or 6 myself. Yes, they are an extreme breed.  Yes, some of the bloodlines of the APDT and the Staffy can have a tendency toward DOG AGGRESSION.  I.E., Dog-to-dog aggression, not dog-to-human aggression). 

The real fundamental issue that's not being addressed is why the OWNERS of ANY dog that can be dangerous (irrelevent of breed) are not being aggressively prosecuted if they're not keeping their dogs properly confined-- and instead a certain breed is being scape-goated?

At our local dog training company, we're seeing way more German Shepherd Dogs, Australian Cattle dogs and Huskys with aggression issues than pit bulls.  And the pit bulls that typically have aggression issues are not aggressive to humans, but to other dogs.  Sure, there are exceptions, but no more than other breeds.

I once talked to Larry Welborne, a semi-famous newspaper reporter for the OC Register.  He told me that if they get a call about a pit bull biting a child and it turns out that the dog was actually a labrador or a golden retriever-- they don't do the story.  Nobody wants to read about a Golden who bit a kid.  Nobody cares.  But everybody gets excited if it's a "pit bull."

The other problem that the breed is cursed with is that, because it's muscular, it attracts knuckle-head owners.  These people should not own any breed of dog, let alone a pit bull.

Check this out:
http://www.pickthepit.com/

OK we have the anecdotal testimony. But are the numbers cited lies? Numbers, unless false, are not bullshit. They are just facts.

P.S. I completely agree that animal owners should be liable, both civilly and criminally for what their creatures do. If your "pet" mauls someone, unless it can be proven the animal was acting in self defense or under extreme provocation, you should be treated as if you beat the hell out of the victim with a baseball bat. If it kills someone, you should be stand trial for manslaughter at a minimum.

[Benko]

OK we have the anecdotal testimony. But are the numbers cited lies? Numbers, unless false, are not bullshit. They are just facts.

Unless you know how many (of the animals that harmed people)  were trained by criminals or other people trying to raise the animals to be violent, you have no idea how many were inherently violent.  This is why scientific evidence has control groups, and this does not.  The number of deaths you cite has no meaning.

[dualstow]

I once talked to Larry Welborne, a semi-famous newspaper reporter for the OC Register.  He told me that if they get a call about a pit bull biting a child and it turns out that the dog was actually a labrador or a golden retriever-- they don't do the story.  Nobody wants to read about a Golden who bit a kid.  Nobody cares.  But everybody gets excited if it's a "pit bull."

Awful. Unsurprising, but awful.

[Pointedstick]

OK we have the anecdotal testimony. But are the numbers cited lies? Numbers, unless false, are not bullshit. They are just facts.

Numbers may not lie, but they rarely tell the truth on their own. We have to look behind the numbers to determine the real story.

The parallels to guns seem unavoidable. In 2013, 5,782 people were murdered using handguns. And 308  were murdered using shotguns and 285 using rifles.

One interpretation of these data would be that handguns, in and of themselves, are inherently more dangerous than rifles and shotguns, and therefore need special restrictions. But to the person who actually understands and perhaps owns firearms, it is obvious that not only are handguns not more dangerous than rifles and shotguns, but that the opposite is true! Someone familiar with firearms realizes that the only advantages of a handgun are portability and concealability. From there, it is no great leap to realize that these are great advantages to criminals, and so handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. From this perspective, the problem is not the guns, but their users. That it is not a gun problem, but a criminal problem.

It seems to be basically the same thing with pit bulls. Perhaps the answer is that the kind of person who is attracted to a big scary dog gets a pit bull and trains it badly or not at all. In other words, that it is an owner problem, not a dog problem.

[Mountaineer]

OK we have the anecdotal testimony. But are the numbers cited lies? Numbers, unless false, are not bullshit. They are just facts.

Numbers may not lie, but they rarely tell the truth on their own. We have to look behind the numbers to determine the real story.

The parallels to guns seem unavoidable. In 2013, 5,782 people were murdered using handguns. And 308  were murdered using shotguns and 285 using rifles.

One interpretation of these data would be that handguns, in and of themselves, are inherently more dangerous than rifles and shotguns, and therefore need special restrictions. But to the person who actually understands and perhaps owns firearms, it is obvious that not only are handguns not more dangerous than rifles and shotguns, but that the opposite is true! Someone familiar with firearms realizes that the only advantages of a handgun are portability and concealability. From there, it is no great leap to realize that these are great advantages to criminals, and so handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. From this perspective, the problem is not the guns, but their users. That it is not a gun problem, but a criminal problem.

It seems to be basically the same thing with pit bulls. Perhaps the answer is that the kind of person who is attracted to a big scary dog gets a pit bull and trains it badly or not at all. In other words, that it is an owner problem, not a dog problem.

+10^10

Pointedstick for President!

...Mountaineer

[Coffee]

One of the problems with the numbers they present is that they're based on "pit bulls," right? Click on the link at the bottom of my post (above) and you'll see how difficult it is to identify what is a "pit bull."  Cripes... half the English Labs look like pit bulls, these days.

[MachineGhost]

Hmm, I'm not in favor of breed discrimination laws, but that author doesn't provide any context for her so-called facts.  I think we're just beating around the bush and not admitting its a fatherless black male problem, AGAIN.  I'd want to know if the owners of the mauled baby were black, were the owners of the dogs that mauled the elderly guy black, etc.  Excluding that from news to be impartial just obscures context.  Social responsibility is not the hallmark of fatherless black males.

[Lowe]

@ Coffee

That does not look like a pit bull to me.  They are pretty distinctive, aren't they?

...

I once went to the Humane Society location in my neighborhood.  It is alarming how many unwanted dogs these places have.  If I get more space, I may adopt one.

I think I might have seen one or two pit bulls there, but it was mostly unidentifiable mutts to me.  My takeaway was that it might be good to police dog ownership and breeding.  Maybe compel people to fix their dogs, unless they pay a fee.  This might already go on some places.


EDIT:  I looked up pit bull pictures for reference.  It does look like one in the face.  H/e it has that floppy skin on its neck, and so much hair.  Would anyone call that a pit bull?

[Ad Orientem]

OK we have the anecdotal testimony. But are the numbers cited lies? Numbers, unless false, are not bullshit. They are just facts.

Unless you know how many (of the animals that harmed people)  were trained by criminals or other people trying to raise the animals to be violent, you have no idea how many were inherently violent.  This is why scientific evidence has control groups, and this does not.  The number of deaths you cite has no meaning.

Of course they have meaning. It means that those people were killed by pit bulls. Those are facts. The issues you are raising are conjecture.

In the legal world there is a term called "affirmative defense." Basically this refers to a shifting of the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. Usually it occurs when the prosecution would otherwise be required to prove a negative. For example if Bill walks into his local saloon, pulls out a gun and shoots Rob dead, he is likely to be charged with murder or manslaughter. In almost every jurisdiction that adheres to the Anglo-American legal tradition, the prosecutor will be obliged to prove only two things...
a) Bill killed Rob.
b) He did so deliberately or under circumstances evincing culpable negligence.

Prosecutors are NOT required to prove that a homicide was not self defense, or that the perpetrator was not insane. A defendant pleading insanity or self defense has the burden of proof placed on them because they are de-facto conceding the prosecution's case (see a and b above). What you are suggesting is the logical equivalent of requiring prosecutors to prove a negative, or in this case multiple negatives, as a precondition for taking any corrective action. That would would have the effect of making it so difficult, as to border on impossible, to regulate the ownership of dangerous animals.This strikes me as flying in the face of commonsense.

[Ad Orientem]

OK we have the anecdotal testimony. But are the numbers cited lies? Numbers, unless false, are not bullshit. They are just facts.

The parallels to guns seem unavoidable.

Rubbish. I can leave my .357 mag fully loaded on my coffee table, and unless someone picks it up or otherwise disturbs it, it will harm no one. Guns are inanimate objects. They are incapable of harming anyone without human intervention. Animals have a will of their own. They can and will act on their own, for good or ill.

[Coffee]

@ Coffee

That does not look like a pit bull to me.  They are pretty distinctive, aren't they?

...

Again, it gets back to the question: What actually is a, "pit bull"?  The media is very quick to throw any variety of breeds under the bus.  Did you see this link:

Check this out:
http://www.pickthepit.com/

[moda0306]

Has there really never been a controlled study done on the territorial nature of pitts?  I find it hard to believe that there's not some decent data on this.  I'm not calling anyone a liar... just weird to me that there hasn't been something done.

A lot of the numbers are going to be skewed because of the "ownership" bias that PS is talking about... however, I wouldn't be surprised at all that a more territorial breed with as much physical presence as pitts would have a significantly higher risk of causing life-threatening damage to another dog or a member of the public.

My question isn't so much one of public policy, but personal decision-making and downside risk management.  Namely, unless you're a recluse on 20 acres of prairie-land, and you take your dogs in public and have guests and other dogs over, why take the risk of what is quite potenitally a far more risky breed for no material behavioral benefit.

Further, if it is truly the training of their original owners that is the problem, then owners of "rescued" pitt bulls (as well as other breeds) who do not take proper action to keep them restrained and not exposed to the public are taking a HUGE risk by doing so.  If these number truly represent a problem with raising dogs, then we need to proceed under the premise that poorly-raised dogs are a HUGE risk, even after being adopted by a well-meaning family.  You can't have your cake and eat it too... and you're certainly not absolved of guilt if you have a poorly raised dog (even if you didn't raise it poorly) being allowed to exist in high-risk scenarios with the public or other dogs (usually at the same time).

But even if we ignore the "rescued dog" arena and go back to the "innocent properly raised pitt bull" area of debate...

To me, I've never seen anything about a pitt bull that I've found to be uniquely good.  I've met many great ones, but dogs are great in general.  I love dogs.  Most dogs are loyal, bark at strangers but not violently, like to play fetch and swim, like playing with other dogs and have idiosyncrasies that are super fun to have in a family.  Most pitts I've met are no different.  If a controlled study came out that said that pitt bulls raised properly are just 3x more likely to do permanent damage to a human or another dog (rather than the massive ratios that we see in admittedly-flawed statistics on dog attacks), why take the risk?  A dog, in general, could very well be such a positive aspect to a full household (especially one with hunting hobbies) that we accept a certain amount of risk in allowing an animal to be around our family and friends.  But why even take the risk of a territorial, potentially more-dangerous dog-breed?  What is it about pitt bulls that make them decidedly better than another breed?  I don't know of anything.  So while I find some people's attitude towards pitt bulls to be a tad immature when calling for euthanizing all of the breed or banning it from every public place, I find it absolutely dumbfounding that people who get pitts try to justify it by claiming that "there's no scientific evidence that they "are dangerous" or "all dogs can be dangerous" or whatever, and then they either find pitts rescued from the very hell upbringing that they claim is truly at fault, or buy pups of a breed that has no material upside but potentially massive marginal downside risk of owning a pitt bull. 

Risk Management 101 is clearly in favor of finding a less territorial breed to own.  All the anecdotal stories about "great pitt bulls" that people know, or golden retrievers that have bitten people, or claiming the moral high ground for adopting an abused dog doesn't pardon what seems to me to be justifying a really questionable decision.  I mean run a decision matrix on getting a pitt bull vs another less-territorial breed and show me the one where it makes sense for a family of 5 to either adopt an abused pitt bull (which most pro-pitt advocates claim have been exposed to the very environment that promotes violence from the dog), or to buy a pitt bull pup.

I say this as someone who loves dogs, and really has enjoyed the majority of the pitt bulls I've interacted with.  I'm not trying to condescend, as developing systems for decision-making around uncertainty and risk is NOT something we are taught and always intuitive, but can someone clarify to me if I'm being unfair or my analysis is off?

[MachineGhost]

Prosecutors are NOT required to prove that a homicide was not self defense, or that the perpetrator was not insane. A defendant pleading insanity or self defense has the burden of proof placed on them because they are de-facto conceding the prosecution's case (see a and b above). What you are suggesting is the logical equivalent of requiring prosecutors to prove a negative, or in this case multiple negatives, as a precondition for taking any corrective action. That would would have the effect of making it so difficult, as to border on impossible, to regulate the ownership of dangerous animals.This strikes me as flying in the face of commonsense.

What world do you live in where cops that kill non-violent victims get completely off with not even a manslaughter charge?  We can't have a double standard here, one for pit bull owners but another for the police just because you're crony with the latter.

[Ad Orientem]

Prosecutors are NOT required to prove that a homicide was not self defense, or that the perpetrator was not insane. A defendant pleading insanity or self defense has the burden of proof placed on them because they are de-facto conceding the prosecution's case (see a and b above). What you are suggesting is the logical equivalent of requiring prosecutors to prove a negative, or in this case multiple negatives, as a precondition for taking any corrective action. That would would have the effect of making it so difficult, as to border on impossible, to regulate the ownership of dangerous animals.This strikes me as flying in the face of commonsense.

What world do you live in where cops that kill non-violent victims get completely off with not even a manslaughter charge?  We can't have a double standard here, one for pit bull owners but another for the police just because you're crony with the latter.

Pointing out the sometimes very legitimate shortcomings in our society is a poor argument for ignoring other problems.

[MachineGhost]

I say this as someone who loves dogs, and really has enjoyed the majority of the pitt bulls I've interacted with.  I'm not trying to condescend, as developing systems for decision-making around uncertainty and risk is NOT something we are taught and always intuitive, but can someone clarify to me if I'm being unfair or my analysis is off?

See Beyond the Stereotypes of Pit Bull Terrier-Like Dogs to Save Them All

Ledy VanKavage, Esq., Senior Legislative Attorney, Best Friends Animal Society

We all want safe and humane communities. Scientific studies have proven that pit bull terriers are just as safe and gentle as any other dog. In fact, they have ranked better than golden retrievers or border collies on temperament tests, according to the American Temperament Test Society. Best Friends Animal Society hired Luntz Global to hold a focus group to learn how to fight breed discrimination and market pit bull terriers. Join us and learn how to change perceptions to Save Them All. Click to watch the webinar. To download the pdf of this presentation, click here.

[dualstow]

...wouldn't those irresponsible Pit Bull owners just select a new, powerful breed of dog to ruin and unleash on the public?

So to speak