The Academic Impostor Behind the Pit Bull Hysteria

[baldguy]

The most influential advocate for the eradication of pit bulls is an academic fraud. Merritt Clifton is prominent not simply because he has been making noise for decades, but because he uniquely claims to be a rigorous statistician: a scholarly expert. People who hate pit bulls lean on this man's putative expertise.

And he's a charlatan.

...

In the first few minutes of the video linked here, for instance, you will see him pronounce: "I have more than a hundred peer-reviewed publications."

This would seem truly impressive -- that's a hefty body of published work. It's troubling, however, that not one of these publications shows up in a search on JSTOR, the comprehensive academic database online. Nor can I find a single example of his copious oeuvre in Harvard's library, which can also be searched online. One hundred publications, admirably invisible.

more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/merritt-clifton-pit-bulls_b_5866176.html?utm_hp_ref=pit-bulls

Merritt Clifton is a liar, and people who promote his lies repeatedly - even after these lies are exposed - have the innocent blood of millions of dogs & hundreds of people on their hands.

[hobbit709]

1. The pittie haters are like the anti-vaxxers.

Evidence be damned and if you expose their spokesperson as a fraud they just ignore that inconvenient (to them) fact.

[1dogleft]

4. pittie makes them

sound a cute and fuzzy until they kill your dog at the dog park Pit Bulls are good for thugs, Hells Angels, and people who want to look tough. It is always the best neighborhoods that have the most "pitties". When I am walking my lab and see one coming I walk the other way, it is not worth my dogs health to prove me right

[hobbit709]

5. None of the pittie owners I know fit your description.

And every pittie I've ever run across has been a shameless beggar for attention.
The only attacks I've seen at the dog park I go to were a Golden and a beagle.

[Gore1FL]

14. I have pics of what my neighbor's pit did to me and my dachshund in my own yard.

Let me know, and I can post some of them.

[Sunlei]

29. and you sued your neighbor, right? Your neighbor is totally responsible for all damages.

Even if he threw a piano out his window and it crushed you and your doxie or he fired his guns into your home & hurt you- in a similar way your neighbor is totally responsible for damages.

[pnwmom]

85. And what do you do when it's an unknown owner and pit bull you encounter

on a hiking trail -- who take off while you're attending to your bleeding dog?

That's what happened to my son and our 25 pound poodle mix. I was very thankful that my son didn't get injured, but we had a vet bill of $900 to pay and a traumatized dog.

[Sunlei]

107. carry some 'bear spray' when you walk about. Strays are a huge problem here in houston too.

Lots of people have dogs when they shouldn't. Personally I think it should be against the law to chain dogs and leave a dog outside in the fenced yard when no one is home. All dogs should have (at the least) a rabies tag visible on their collar, at all times.

[pnwmom]

114. Wouldn't have helped. The dog ran up out of nowhere -- from behind my son --

and attacked our dog in a second. My son looked down and there was the pit, taking a chomp out of our dog. My son kicked him off and luckily didn't get bitten himself.

In one snap, that pit's bite went down so deeply into our dog that the vet had to place tubing in to allow drainage for days.

[Sunlei]

118. Your son was lucky & brave!

Good thing he was able to kick off the dog. The bear spray, a pocket size mace or pepper spray, could come in handy someday. There are times dogs that run up to attack your pet dog or humans will not let go. Spray the dog(s) with mace & they will let go.

[pnwmom]

122. Yes, having the spray would be a good idea, though my son has asthma so he'd have to be very careful

not to get in the cloud himself.

[1dogleft]

33. no one died

when the golden/beagle fought. My bro/inlaw and his 4 young daughters had one and nothing ever happened but the potential was always there. There is a reason why they are the choice of the more hardcore element of society

[hollysmom]

140. dogs in packs are the danger

I was once surrounded and terrorized by beagles at a bus stop. I love dogs, I am nice to dogs, I tried to be friendly but they were a pack. it is like a bunch of guys trying to show who has the biggest gun. The bullied me. I have also been hugged by a 6 foot (on back legs pit bull when I accidentally wandered on to their property. I didn't know there was a dog there and was canvassing for sierra club. .I saw this huge dog run towards me and ws terrorized, then it got up and put it's paws on my shoulder and nuzzled the top of my head. You never know. When you hear of multiple dogs attacking someone think Pack. Not what kind of a dog it was.

I was the one who adopted a "vicious" dog where I promised to keep only on my property, but in reality turned out to be a chicken dog, who needs and craves affection not violence.

[intaglio]

178. Thugs, Hells Angels and others will not socialise any dog

no matter what the breed and that dog will be dangerous. Bad owners not bad dogs are responsible for attacks.

For 11 years I was a utility meter reader in the UK. This involved me in going onto peoples property and entering their homes, the only common indicator regarding what dogs threatened or me were the owners: none of these dogs were bull terriers of any sort. I will open a thread about my personal experiences.

[arikara]

39. What does one have to do with the other

exactly? What would make the functioning synapses in your brain think of vaccines when you read a story about pit bulls? Curious indeed. It reminds me of how the anti abortionists manage to bring their obsession into unrelated conversations.

[hobbit709]

42. did you bother to read beyond the post title? Is comparison beyond your comprehension?

"Evidence be damned and if you expose their spokesperson as a fraud they just ignore that inconvenient (to them) fact."

[seabeyond]

43. i think the connection is on du anti vac gets scorned, ridiculed, shamed, and he was using that to

do the same, to the anti pit

i too kinda had a problem with that connection. pretty damn manipulative.

[1dogleft]

54. I wish I had your way with words n/t

[baldguy]

58. Dog haters, anti-vaxxers (and anti-abortionisists, too) all rely on unreasoned fear, spurious logic,

Myths, outright lies, and unscientific bullshit which has been repeatedly debunked.

And most of all, their actions harm people. If dog bites are a problem, anti-Pit Bull legislation isn't a solution BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE PROBLEM!

[seabeyond]

92. dog haters? most of the people on this thread have dogs. that hardly shows them as dog haters, nt

[baldguy]

102. Sort of like Michael Vick.

After all, they want to do the same things to dogs.

[seabeyond]

109. no. again. not even sorta like. nt

[baldguy]

115. You're claiming the mere possession of a canine precludes someone from being a dog hater?

Even if they advocate or & participate in the torture, abuse, neglect & mass slaughter of dogs? And before you protest, that's exactly what BSLs are: the legalized torture, abuse, neglect & mass slaughter of dogs. This is exactly what Vick is guilty of. And this is what dog haters advocate for. And it's evil.

There's no real difference between the monsters like Vick who engage in dog fighting, and those who parrot Clifton who campaign for & promote BSLs. They both kill innocent dogs, and they both exasperate the problem of dog aggression.

[seabeyond]

117. no. i am claiming, the mere discussion of, fear of, experience, with pit bulls, does not make a dog

hater

in a way I am on your side. I am on your side cause I get you love your dogs, and I get there is a heightened fear of your dogs, and I get they are being attacked.

and

it is a dog. merely an animal. and that, we have to protect.

while. I know... the pit is not what you create it to be. and I know, the pit has created havoc, and fear, because it is merely an animal.

I expect no more out of a pit, then I would expect of any animal. I respect the animal in it. like I do a bear, that would be willing to rip me apart, or a shark that takes a bite out of my middle.

that does not mean. I hate dogs.

[baldguy]

123. Comparing a Pit Bull to a bear or a shark makes your protestations... unconvincing.

People who advocate killing dogs are dog haters by definition. Michael Vick owned many dogs, and in his sick, twisted thoughts probably believed he loved dogs - even as he was drowning some of them or hanging them up & beating them with a bat.

Same thing with people who support BSLs.

[seabeyond]

127. "Comparing a Pit Bull to a bear or a shark makes your protestations... unconvincing." no. animals.

animals that kill.

be it a ear. a dog. a shark.

they are animals. we see the pitt kill. no one is going to pretend a pit does not kill.

all the rest .....

People who advocate killing dogs are dog haters by definition. Michael Vick owned many dogs, and in his sick, twisted thoughts probably believed he loved dogs - even as he was drowning some of them or hanging them up & beating them with a bat.

Same thing with people who support BSLs.

all this is the emotion of it.

I am saying, ... to use the emotion of it to deny reality, will not work.

[baldguy]

131. Do you even understand the OP?

Merritt Clifton claims Pit Bulls are responsible most most dog bites, and Pit Bulls are responsible for most dog bite fatalities. This is a lie. That's the whole point of the article! Pit Bulls don't kill any more than any other dog kills.

And if you want to criticize emotion, try going after the other side.

[seabeyond]

136. bald. i addressed the people in this thread are dog haters.

I do not believe the people in this thread, are dog haters.

no more. no less.

actually, a tad bit more. like. I am kinda, sorta, I hear ya, on your side.

[Sunlei]

138. as an aside, all except 2? of the Vick dogs were retrained and adopted by families.

I don't think Vick has ever 'outed' the people he sold pups to or the fight rings/clubs where he fought his family dogs.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

155. Meh, those are "wimpy dog" owners

Always crying and complaining when Pitty shows up to the dog park and starts tearing off some Yorkies head or ripping a shank steak from a Black Lab's hind quarter. Lassie and Benji just need to toughen up or stay home.

Oh, and MURDERER!!!!!

[seabeyond]

157. having had my behavior affected by confrontation with pits, .... i know, lol. nt

[rustydog]

216. I wish I could recall the news source

but the person who was attacked and killed recently by Pitt bulls. Her arm was ripped off in the unprovoked attack.

Not Chihuahua's, not Yorkies, not German shepherds, not Great Danes, Pit Bulls attacked and killed the person.

I don't care how many times the OP posts his pro-Pitt rants...The dogs attack and kill people. savagely.

[Jamastiene]

203. It is incredibly ignorant and shallow to hate certain breeds of dogs.

Dog owners, who have owned more than one breed of dog through the years know breed matters little. The individual dog, and more importantly, how that individual dog is trained and socialized (or not, as usually is the case in the violent cases) matters more than the breed.

If you raise a dog to be an antisocial jerk, that's what you'll get. If you raise a dog to be friendly and sociable, that is what you will get. It is all in the training and socialization. If you can't get the behavior you prefer out of a dog, you are in need of training by someone who knows how to work with dogs, because dogs are incredibly easy to train if you take the time to do it regularly until they learn.

Dogs WANT to please their owners. That makes training them very easy, if you know how to do it and bother to take the time up with them to do it. I think a lot of people do not know how to do it right or don't care. Or worse, they purposely train the dog to be super aggressive. That is not the dog's fault. It is still the owner's fault in both of those cases.

Anyone who lets their dogs just roam without being there to both protect them and control their behavior toward other living things probably didn't give a shit enough to train them to begin with. That is why they end up with their dogs being antisocial and harming others and their pets and ending up destroyed. Then every dog that is that same breed of dog gets unfairly tarnished because of shitty owners who either don't bother to take care of their dogs or purposely trains their dogs to be assholes, just like them.

[seabeyond]

207. the reality is, many of us have had experiences in our lives that have curtailed our behavior,

because of the irresponsible owners, and more aggressive breeds.

to refuse to understand that some of us now walk in trepidation, when walking our little dogs out in the world, cause ASSHOLES do not control, leash or are responsible with their bigger breeds. causing both our animals... that we love, you know, dog lovers, and our selves, pain. fuggin pain. owies. and some deaths.

to pretend otherwise is not helpful either. that we walk with bear spray, or a club, or must puff out like a tree, or watch our dog ,,,, die.

[wercal]

98. I used to volunteer at the dog shelter

One wing was exclusively for dogs on court hold. Essentially they had bit somebody and were awaiting their fate, via court order.

This wing was usually at least 50 percent pit bull. No hysteria. No lack of facts. I saw with my own two eyes that there were more pits than any other breed in the bad dog wing.

[Jamastiene]

205. Was this some sort of special pure bred dogs only type shelter?

Most dog shelters are full of mixed breed dogs. Labeling mixed breed dogs "pit bulls" based on perception only is nonsense.

[wercal]

217. Predictable 'you can't id a pit bull' bullshit response

So if I didn't run their dna, it didn't happen right?

[NealK]

218. Predictable "I didn't run their dna" idiotic reply.

[jtuck004]

2. He truly is the worst sort of slimebag - hides behind animal welfare to kill them. Not to

mention being quite the little right-wing teabagger.

[NYC_SKP]

3. All I want is for fucking people to keep their fucking animals on a leash, whatever breed.

I was walking my tiny terrier as I do every day and on two occasions just days apart, out of nowhere pits come flying- two on one day and a few days later one from across the boulevard.

Coming for my dog, 9 pounds, and she is on a fucking leash.

So I had to pull Millie up by leash and little chock chain up off the pavement while I shout at these dogs and make them back down.

To hell with which breed.

Fuck the irresponsible owners.

My dog is traumatized and doesn't like to take walks anymore.

[ColesCountyDem]

7. You and me both!

I own a 3 year-old basset hound, and he has all the natural effusiveness that's characteristic of the breed-- EVERYONE is his new best friend, be it a person, dog or cat. He has a harness and he never leaves the house without his leash on. If people want to pet him (LOTS do), I let them, but otherwise I keep him on a 'short leash' whenever we encounter any unknown person or dog on our walks.

Like you, I've only had one problem, and it involved an unleashed pit bull who ran at us, growling and barking, even as the owner assured me that it was 'harmless'. It took 3 hard cracks to its head and face from my one-inch hickory cane, plus the owner pulling it by the collar, before it let loose of my basset's neck. $500, 6 sutures, an antibiotic and pain meds later, Gilbert recovered.

YES, it was the owner's fault. It's ALWAYS the owner's fault, and that's why it should be illegal to own them.

[roody]

46. In my town it IS illegal to have your dog off leash.

[ColesCountyDem]

48. It is here, too, but strangely enough...

... the people most likely to have their dog( s ) leashed are the people whose dogs aren't aggressive. Go figure.

[Jamastiene]

206. There is a direct connection.

It goes back to shitty owners who do not train their dogs or even so much as care if they get hit by a car or go kill someone else and/or their dogs and/or cats. People who bother to take the time to train their dogs correctly, assuming they are not training their dogs for nefarious purposes (see Michael Vick), are not the problem. It is those who do not bother to train their dogs, or train them to behave shitty to begin with. Those dogs would not behave that way if they were properly trained and properly cared for.

By not bothering to train their dogs, their dogs just model their mentality, which is to be an uncaring asshole toward everyone else around. Even pit bulls can be trained to behave and be NON-aggressive. Even Michael Vick's dogs were later retrained to be NON-aggressive. That's the key. Training. Taking the time up with the dog to train it makes a lot of difference in the dog's behavior. It is not rocket science, but try telling that to the asshole who swears up and down their dog is not aggressive when they have no control over their dog because they never bothered to train it. Some people should not be allowed to have any breed of dog. Instead of breed specific legislation, there should be owner specific legislation. If a dog Owner has had a dog attack another person or pet, they should not be allowed to own any Breed of dog again. It really should be Owners Specific Legislation, to put the punishment where it belongs, with shitty owners.

[notadmblnd]

17. I don't know about your dog, but the little terrier that lives across the street from me is a terror

Nastiest, most unbalanced little dog I've ever met. Constant yapping and provoking of other dogs when they're being walked. If she wasn't so good at catching squirrels, I'd call the pound on her owners.

[NYC_SKP]

19. Hopefully, at least it's contained on the property and not out on the street.

...

Vicious animals that would kill you or kill my dog with no reason whatsoever have no business being loose and when threatened, people are within their rights to put these animals down.

It's not my job to protect other people's loose animals if they rush me.

[notadmblnd]

24. For the most part she is fenced in

However, I have no doubt that that little monster would kill any thing she could sink her teeth into as her owner has no clue that he is reinforcing her prey instinct by allowing her aggressive behavior when people and other dogs are about.

[Sunlei]

134. I always say about my little pet terriers, "Thank god they're little!"

[notadmblnd]

161. You know they are cousins of those evil Pits? If they were bigger

people would be clamoring for their extermination too.

[etherealtruth]

22. Exactly

Sorry about your dog being traumatized.

Dog owners need to keep their dogs "contained" and under control .... acknowledging that owners of larger breeds have taken on added responsibility.

spay/ neuter your pets

[Sunlei]

34. I know what you mean! My friend has some cattle- dogs from the area come on his property & chase

the cattle. The dogs bite, ripped their ears, ripped the tails off a couple of the young cattle.<show cattle now ruined for shows. Dogs killed a few of them.

These are off lead dogs from a close neighborhood. Well fed, some have collars on. Small groups-3 or 4 stray dogs, mostly labs type mixes and always a smaller terrier type mix having their pack-'fun' chasing and biting livestock. dogs never have ID tags.

I agree with you, people need to keep their animals on a leash or contained in their home/ yard properly. It's not the breed, the problem is the idiot owners. The law should require a microchip so every stray can be traced to its owner.

I suggest carry some 'bear spray' when you walk your dog. That stuff works very well against any threat. Just be sure of the wind direction My friend uses both a gun and dog traps to get rid of the packs. He turns the caught dogs into animal control.

3 times over the past 4 years they have had to deal with dog packs. No attacks for 6 months now, we're positive the 'idiot owners' will have more new dogs to allow to run stray soon.

[seabeyond]

37. +1. i had that experience last year. scared that crap out of me. keep dogs on their fuckin leash. nt

[Jamastiene]

204. If you know you will need to pull your dog up off the pavement, why are you STILL using a "chock"

chain? I assume you mean choke chain.

Knowing that, you should switch to a harness and walk your dog in another area for her own safety.

I agree that irresponsible dog owners, whatever breed, who let their dogs roam and misbehave are the problem, but by using that choker and yanking your dog up off the pavement when another dog comes after her, you are training your dog that whenever another dog acts aggressive toward her, it is her fault. Instead, use a harness to let her know it is not her fault, but for her own protection instead. Also, walk her in a safer area. That way she won't be traumatized by the idea of going for walks.

[jeffrey_pdx]

6. Breed doesn't matter

I've had friends with pit bulls. They were very friendly. It all comes down to who raises them and trains them

[Scarsdale]

9. Rat Terriers

I love animals, and pet any in the neighborhood. One that I avoid is the rat terrier who snarls barks and lunges at cars, people, other dogs. I tried to make friends with him, and he ripped a hole in my pants. I told the owner to carry a spray bottle filled with water, and spray him in the face when he gets aggresive. She never did. I feel sorry for the dog, because I am not the only one who avoids him

[Drahthaardogs]

27. No. Training can mask genetics to a degree but genetics are important.

And I have trained and played the doggie games since I was a boy. I have won and lost more than a few trials. Some dogs are predisposed to aggression, higher prey drives, and higher fight drives. Most people do not know what to do with it. You cannot love it away although proper socialization helps a fair amount.

[DirkGently]

100. Except no one knows a bad dog's "genetics," right?

There is no genetic test for dog "breed." It's essentially like race among humans -- it's a physical appearance. You don't know a thing about a dog's actual genetic makeup by looking at it.

Add to that the fact people in the U.S. combine three different breeds and all of their mixes in the term "pit bull."

And that bite statistics come from news reports, not a scientific database, and that most people, including owners, can't identify breeds properly, looking right at them.

For example, there’s this web item from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:

"Animal control officers across the country have told the ASPCA that when they alert the media to a dog attack, news outlets respond that they have no interest in reporting on the incident unless it involved a pit bull. A quantitative study by the National Canine Resource Council of dog-bite reportage in a four-day period proves that anti-pit bull bias in the media is more than just a theory — it’s a fact.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/fetch/2010/07/18/the-media-takes-its-lumps-over-reporting-about-pit-bulls/1387/

However, the March 2006 issue of Pediatrics analyzed regional studies where breed population could be reasonably determined by administrative district records. The medical charts of minors seeking medical attention for dog bites were referenced to the breed as verified by the veterinarian providing proof of rabies vaccination. The margin for error not withstanding, the resulting risk index showed that German Shepherds were five times more likely to cause bite trauma to minors that required medical attention than “pit bulls” over a ten year period

http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Media-Bias-DogBites-067.asp

Add the fact that the only testing actually done on real pit bulls places their temperament above average and better than 121 other breeds.
http://www.examiner.com/article/pit-bulls-scoring-better-than-121-other-breeds-temp.erament-are-gentle-dogs

Consider as well that the pit bull hysteria is only about 20 years old. Before that it was Rottweilers we all needed to fear. Before that, Dobermans. Before that, incredibly, it was bloodhounds (they can smell your blood!)

All the same arguments about dogs "built to kill."

And what you end up with is an irrational cultural bias no better grounded than concluding you can spot a killer human by their size, shape, or color.

Or their " breeding."

[Drahthaardogs]

105. So much misinformation here.

OF COURSE responsible breeders select for things other than appearances. OF COURSE other genetic traits can be tested and measured. THE FCI does it ALL THE TIME for just about EVERY BREED! The breed books with EVERY puppies's test results are published annually for any and all to read. You don't think breeders select for MENTAL TRAITS????? They spend hours selecting studs to breed to their bitches to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

Hilarious statement on your part. You have never trained a dog to much more than sit and stay have you?

To make a blanket statement that you can only breed for "physical appearance" shows again how you guys have about a thimble full of dog knowledge. Responsible breeders and breed registries test for many other things. "Form follows function" is the motto of the FCI -- in other words, a dog bred to do its job and do it well will look the way it needs to look to perform.

This is why pit bulls are a mess as a breed. No strong breeding requirements, no tests, nada.

As far as the German Shepherd Dogs go, I know a lot of those dogs. Most people who wants a real working GSD goes to FCI-bred dogs because of superior HEALTH and MENTAL STABILITY. The FCI GSD is NOT the same as the AKC GSD.

[DirkGently]

116. False argument from authority. "Responsible breeders?"

You seem to be trying to bend a conversation that has zip to do with "responsible breeders" toward an area you feel expert in, while disregarding the complete irrelevance to the situation at hand.

Have you ever heard of an expert breeder or trainer having problems with their carefully bred Pit, Staffordshire, or Bull Terrier leaping fences to devour children and so forth? If not, what knowledge exactly are you trying to impart here?

On one hand you seem to want to say that we can judge dogs called "pit bulls" based on "genetics" because "responsible breeders" pay attention to a variety of traits. But of course that ignores the fact that responsible breeders don't create the monster dogs that rip people to pieces that everyone in the thread is complaining about, right?

Are you trying to tell us that the scary dog down the street, kept chained to a tree until it breaks loose and goes poodle hunting, can be judged based on the way show dogs are bred? That those "genetics" have anything at all to do with the "pit bulls" in the newspapers?

You want to speak from authority as an expert dog trainer or breeder, but you don't acknowledge that reports of horrific dog attacks that make people terrified of so-called "pit bulls" aren't made by dog trainers or breeders, but by cops and newspapers and angry neighbors who don't know an American Pit Bull Terrier from a American Staffordshire Terrier from a Staffordshire Bull Terrier from a housecat.

You want to emphasize the effect of "responsible breeding" on temperament, but don't address that when actual pits, actually bred as such, are tested for temperament, they are well above average.

You know real breeders don't breed for dangerous temperament. You know the people reporting the dangers aren't breeders, don't know the breeds, and can't identify them. You know that pit bulls bred in the way you are describing are not dangerous animals.

Therefore, once again, "genetics" has exactly jack and shit to do with the YouTube videos and internet horror stories people are relying upon, correct?

[Drahthaardogs]

137. Show dogs are a genetic mess.

You should have known that. The fact that you don't -- it says a lot.

Real breeders do breed for aggression. There is different types, e.g. drives. Prey, Fight, Protection, etc. Pit bulls suck because people won't admit that there is a problem. If they had a decent breed registry, things could be better.

Your dog knowledge is about half a shot glass full. Keep digging though. This is fun.

[DirkGently]

144. Fun because you ignore facts and logic?

You have no response to temperament testing showing pit bulls are above average. You have no response to the fact that the term itself refers to three different breeds. You have no response to the obvious problem of misidentification.

You say ancient Roman breeding and "genetics" somehow affects the dozens of possible combinations of breeds and mixes loosely called "pit bulls" in the press, then turn around and say the genetics are a "mess" and all kinds of people breed for all kinds of traits.

Which is it? Can you judge a dog's actual traits by its purported breed, or can't you? Are traits consistent or aren't they? If they are, you lose, because the actual testing on actual pit bulls show their temperament is above average as to aggression. If they aren't, you lose, because you can't generalize at all if "the genetics are a mess."

None of your arguments here support any conclusion about "pit bulls" in general, except for the obvious one that they are the cultural Bogey Dog du jour, and that people are naturally inclined to make false extrapolations about both people and animals based on what they look like.

Surely it's not that difficult to grasp the confirmation bias going on, or the gobsmacking overgeneralization of all bad dogs as "pits," or the self-selection by bad people who insist on calling whatever unpleasant dog they have sought out by the current Scary Breed Name?

These are not high intellectual hurdles to cross, are they?

[Drahthaardogs]

149. that temperment test is not only for aggression

And recent results 2013, shows 1 in 7 pits lor staffordshires fail.

How many dogs do you train a year? How many litters have you had? Why did you choose the stud? Were the pups tested? How did yoj decide who to sell a pup?

[DirkGently]

152. So, you have no answers, just credentials?

You breed dogs. It sounds like you do it well, which is wonderful. Really. But you're making no sense on this topic.

The "pit bull" problem is nothing inherent in any type of identifiable dog. What we have is a social issue wherein all large, unpleasant dogs are called "pit bulls." The three actual breeds involved have no special attributes, either from "Roman times" or otherwise that ensure they are particularly dangerous. Not more so than a Shepherd, or a Mastiff, or an Akita, or a hundred other breeds and mixes with powerful bites and prey drives and protective instincts.

Terriers are sturdy, loyal, and stubborn, correct? Great for a companion; horrible if you find a nasty one clamped onto you. But Rottweilers bite harder. Mastiffs can be bigger and stronger. Shepherds and Dobermans run faster. Akitas and Chow Chows are more "bitey" overall. All of those breeds have general traits that make them a nightmare if you run across a nasty one.

So we don't have a problem with the actual "pit bull" breed. What we have is the usual mess of people breeding and socializing any number of animals irresponsibly, and a current cultural obsession with the scary-sounding breed name "pit bull."

Destroy all the animals under that moniker today, and tomorrow you don't think the same idiots will have terrifying animals with big heads and fighting instincts that they will call something else?

Using your expertise, you haven't noticed pictures and film of purported "pit bulls" that are clearly more Mastiff or Shepherd than anything else?

You don't see the problem as one that can only be solved by people changing their behavior, rather than a given "type" of dog being favored or disfavored?

[Drahthaardogs]

160. You have a GENETICS PROBLEM because you have irresponsible people.

Last edited Sun Oct 5, 2014, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)

How many fucking ways do you want me to say it? How many examples of responsible breeding do you want me to give? I cannot help you if you will not accept a UNIVERSAL TRUTH held by all serious dogmen. Mom and Dad throw puppies A LOT like them. If you have shit for a breeding control program, you end up with a lot of fucked up dogs. It is not a big deal when you are talking about a 25 pound cocker spaniel (and I use that breed because they were ruined by unscrupulous breeding in the seventies) versus a 65 lb dog of great power.

You give an example of a chained dog going crazy as proof of "socialization". Again, bullshit. You know why? Because if that dog did not have a GENETIC PROPENSITY to violence it would not matter. Case in point. I know of hundreds of english pointers down south who live on a chain with a 55-gallon barrel as a home. They are taken out for training on birds or actual hunting, then back on the chain. Right or wrong they spend about 20 hours of every day on a chain; it is how they have done it down south for generations.

You know what those dogs do when they manage to get loose? THEY GO QUAIL HUNTING BY THEMSELVES! They don't go fucking maul the neighbor lady's cats. They don't gang up and kill the five year old playing soccer. If they run into an old lady carrying groceries, they IGNORE HER and keep on hunting quail. They have NO PROPENSITY TO go on the attack. IT IS NOT IN THEIR GENES.

And for the record, ANY STABLE dog does not see the four year old neighbor kid as a THREAT! A dog that goes out of his way to run that kid down and attack --that dog, is a fucking mental mess!

Anyway, I do not fault the breed per se. I blame irresponsible people, much like you do. Except I KNOW that you can TRAIN around aggression and direct it, but you CANNOT SIMPLY LOVE IT AWAY. In fact, that is OFTEN the worst thing you can do.

My point is, has been, and always will be, these dogs have a genetic tendency to power and violence. The whole idea that more "love" is going to control that adequately is bunk. Owning a powerful aggressive breed means MORE responsibility is required. More training. Stricter breeding controls and MORE LIBERAL EUTHANASIA OF IMPROPERLY AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS. I am very logical and very pragmatic about it.

For the record, I still train but I quit breeding years ago. I found that there were others who were far better at it than I was and I was better off training and leaving breeding to those with more time, money, knowledge, and better facilities.

[Jamastiene]

209. Now I KNOW you are full of shit.

I live down south and experience what it is like when those chained dogs get loose. They DO in fact sometimes kill the neighbor's cat. I have since learned to keep my cats indoors at all times. I can do that as an adult. As a kid, I didn't have the luxury of making that decision. So, I had more than one cat killed by those hunting dogs that got loose. You are full of shit if you claim most hunting dogs "down south" are trained properly. They might be trained for hunting, but I have heard of hunters doing everything from starving their dogs to feeding them gunpowder all in the name of training them for hunting here and local authorities do nothing to stop them from those types of abuses. If I was you, I wouldn't use dogs "down south" as any kind of example of great training. That is bullshit. If anything, a lot of these dogs are outright tortured and trained to be the most aggressive assholes imaginable much like their owners.

[Drahthaardogs]

214. Yeah, I am full of shit.

I have trained over a dozen dogs to the NAVHDA Utility. Qualified 1/3 of them to the Invitational.

Trained almost twice of that to Master Hunter in AKC retriever tests.

I bred three litters that were given an Outstanding Breeder Award. Been to Ames more than a few times.

I have trained with (actually I mostly threw ducks for him) Roy McFall and Bodo if we are going to drop names...

And you good sir, have absolutely no fucking clue WHAT you are talking about. I have NEVER met anyone who feeds their dog gunpowder, and no one wants an AGGRESSIVE dog that is expected to run braces with other dogs and are routinely handled by strangers.

[Jamastiene]

208. Dirk posted links to actual studies and facts.

You just keep stating your opinions without any facts. I'd say Dirk's knowledge is based on actual facts and you are just stating opinions. I'd say Dirk is winning this debate, not you.

[Drahthaardogs]

215. Dirk's "facts" and the thing the little bird left on the rock are very similar

A few FACTS

1) That "test" is NOT for aggressive behavior. It tests noise shyness, etc. Italian Spinone (which are about the most gentle dog on the face of the earth) failed it at 50%. It is NO WAY is a test for aggressiveness

2) In 2013, 1 out of 7 dogs FAILED for the pitbull

If you want a real temperament test for aggressiveness I can show you a German one that does exactly what it is supposed to do, not some bullshit feel good test that has no accreditation with any reputable breed registry.

[Android3.14]

31. That's simply an obtuse statement

Try hooking a chihuahua to a dogsled and then tell me how little breed matters. Use a pug as a guard dog instead of a pinscher and tell me how little breed matters.

[jeffrey_pdx]

165. What I meant is that breed of the dog has less to do than how they're raised

If you treat your dog right, it'll be fine. If you train it to be aggressive (like alot of pitbull owners do), it will be. But I don't think pitbulls are more aggressive by nature.

[pnwmom]

86. It does when some breeds are deliberately bred for aggression. n/t

[marble falls]

8. I've never seen a mean dog that wasn't owned by a jackass.

[RebelOne]

60. I have had two pitt bulls and two Rottweilers

who were all sweethearts but now in doggy heaven. But now I have a Chihuahua that I have had since she was 6 weeks old. She is now 5 years old and totally vicious toward strangers. I did not train her to be that way and I am not a jackass.

[CentralMass]

10. I had friends who had a female pitbull who I lived with for a couple of years.

They had raised her from a Pup. We spent a lot of time with her and gave her the physical and emotional play time that I think pit-bulls demand. I loved that dog and could probably a book about her. They are a very intelligent complex breed and have a lot of good qualities.
However, they have some instinctive behavior and unpredictability that in my opinion makes them unacceptable as a family pet.
My friends eventually got married and when their first born was about a year old she snapped at him. They ended having to put her down. IMO they are a bit like a loaded gun. If carefully handled, all is well until something pulls the trigger.

[michaz]

20. You do realize this can be true of any dog?

Any dog can snap at any time. They can all have "triggers." The problem with the pits is that the people that own them that treat them badly or train them to fight are the ones that create the problem. Pits, like any other breed, can be the greatest dogs there are. Breeds cannot be lumped into one category as "bad" or "mean".

[Android3.14]

32. Actually, you can lump breeds into categories

That's why we bred them.

Sure, any dog can snap at any time, but the likelihood of a pit bull snapping is much-much-much higher.

According to this 1991 study "94 percent of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43 percent for other breeds."

It is simply an indefensible stance.

[roody]

47. No dog should be left alone with a baby.

[XemaSab]

49. Who says the dog and baby were alone?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. ...

[XemaSab]

45. Why are they called PIT BULLS?

Hint: they didn't become mean in the last 50 years. They were mean waaaaaaay before that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. They weren't always called "Pit Bull"....

The term Pit Bull is often used as a generic term used to describe dogs with similar physical characteristics. A "Pit Bull" is one of several breeds including the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Bully, American Bulldog, Dogo Argentino, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, or any mix thereof. Any dog that is mixed with a "Bull breed"[citation needed] may also be called a "Pit Bull" including those that are descended from the English Bulldog, French Bulldog, and Boston Terrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Ever hear of the movie, "The Doberman Gang"?

Hysterics used to claim that breed would turn on the owners because of a brain defect and there was talk of the eradication of the breed.

I don't know what it is about some people. Something scares them and they invoke genocide.

[XemaSab]

95. Why is the word "bull" in the name?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

96. It's the angle of the body with muscular front and smaller hind legs...

[XemaSab]

97. RIIIIIIGHT

So you think they were never used for bull baiting or other fighting?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. They were used as herd dogs...

To "bulldog" meant to push and shove. I've seen them used for corralling pigs.

I never denied there are assholes in the world that throw dogs into pits to fight for fun and profit but the idea that the entire breed is dangerous to the point where they should be extinct is nonsense.

My point is the term "pit bull" is mostly SLANG for numerous "bulldog" type breeds and there is a mythology about them hyped by those that use them for fighting and those that are making money as "experts" about them being natural born killers.

[Sunlei]

110. from 'bull baiting', humanity has always encouraged 'animal fights'

1800s England, we're a violent people.

[DirkGently]

153. Yes. Many breeds began as fighters of one kind or another.

Sheepdogs were supposed to fight wolves. All of the hounds were bred to chase and hold for the hunter. The terriers dug in the earth after foxes, badgers, etc. Other groups were bred to guard people and property and to be suspicious of strangers.

All of them have traits we built in that can be dangerous to people or other animals. We can make any dog nasty, and any big dog nasty and dangerous.

We can also stop doing that, and require people to be good owners and not keep vicious animals. What we call them or what they look like matters far less than how they are bred, socialized, and kept.

But we won't be rid of nasty dogs until the people change. The dogs follow our lead.

[Orrex]

12. Never heard of him

Is he somebody?

[CaptainTruth]

13. "I have" is not the same as "I have written."

Just based on the clip (text) in the post, I don't see that he claims to have written a single publication, he just says he has the publications. I can say "I have over 100 books" & that's absolutely true, they're all sitting on my shelves. I don't claim to have written any of them, & in fact I haven't, I just claim to have them.

It seems like the writer of this piece may have made the erroneous assumption that claiming you have a publication is the same as claiming you wrote the publication. IMHO a writer, of all people, shouldn't make that mistake.

My years working with marketing managers have taught me to read words carefully. It can be easy to make people think you're saying something when in fact you're not, in a deliberate attempt to mislead them, as this case illustrates.

I know nothing about Merritt Clifton, & I'm an animal lover. I have friends with a pit bull that's one of the sweetest & most loving dogs I've known. I am not defending Clifton. I'm just pointing out how easy it can be to say one thing & make people assume you're saying something else. Read the words carefully.

[gaspee]

15. The problem with the bully breeds

IS that they are more dog than most people can handle - physically especially, but also mentally - you can never ever let your guard down during interactions with animals and people when the dog at the end of your leash is capable of easily taking lives.

A small dog can have a horrible temperament, but it's not going to kill someone.

[Android3.14]

16. Sorry baldguy, but breed matters

This is a contentious subject for lovers of the pit bull breeds, and I feel sorry for those defending the attacks.

Certainly, a good dog owner can suppress the natural aggressiveness of a breed like a pit bull, just as a bad dog owner can ruin the natural social capabilities of other breeds, such as Newfoundlands.

I've never heard of this Clifton guy, but pit bulls are one of the most prolific breeds at animal shelters, and they originate from lines brought together for sports such as bull baiting, bear baiting and cock fighting.

This study shows that from 1970 through 1988 42 percent of fatal dog attacks were done by pit bulls.

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/1979-1988-dog-bite-related-fatalities.pdf

While Clifton may be a liar about articles, studies do show that pit bulls, despite the super-duper nice individuals, are an aggressive and unpredictable breed.

[ColesCountyDem]

51. My vet agrees with you.

He says that 'Petey' from 'The Little Rascals' is NOT today's average pit bull/'Staffordshire Terrier'. The sad truth is that in the last 40 years, idiots have ruined the breed that truly was 'nanny's friend' in times gone by, and they have done so deliberately and maliciously. Any pit bull today is a ticking time bomb, and the only two things that keep some of them from attacking, etc., is that they a.) were born with longer 'fuses' and b.) they have found owners who have invested the time and effort to socialize the dog.

John does not support wholesale BSL, but he does support things like mandatory escape-proof fencing, mandatory neuter- and spay, mandatory harness and leash, mandatory liability insurance and a strictly-enforced 'one bite, euthanasia' rule.

[DirkGently]

150. You have described a people problem, not a "breed" problem.

It's like saying we have a "Camaro problem" because a disproportionate number of people drive rear-wheel drive V8 cars with that name and muscle-car looks like idiots.

Take away the name, the look, even the V8, and you will have "Mustang problem" of equal proportion immediately.

We DO have a problem with stupid people deliberately breeding and keeping vicious dogs. The fact they currently call most of them "pit bulls" has nothing to do with the three traditional breeds we lump under that moniker.

Temperament tests prove the better-natured pit bulls still exist, and the fact that the most ill-bred dogs are mixes makes the entire issue one of what people do, not what dogs are called or what "breeds" they are purported to be.

That said, liability for owners is appropriate, but for all, not for one or two supposed "scary breeds."

[ColesCountyDem]

156. "We DO have a problem with stupid people deliberately breeding and keeping vicious dogs."

Which is what I said he said, just worded differently. I also wrote "...the only two things that keep some of them from attacking, etc., is that they a.) were born with longer 'fuses' and b.) they have found owners who have invested the time and effort to socialize the dog.....". How is that substantively different from "...Temperament tests prove the better-natured pit bulls still exist...."? You describe the 'mongrelization' of the three breeds, with which he would agree (... 'Petey' from 'The Little Rascals' is NOT today's average pit bull/'Staffordshire Terrier'....).

I'm NOT trying to argue with you. In fact, there's nothing you posted that I disagree with, nor would John disagree, I think. Perhaps it was how I worded what I wrote, but I'm not sure what prompted your reply. While well-written, it seems largely a distinction without a difference.

[DirkGently]

158. "breed matters." It does not.

Was the idea. It is this people problem vs. "breed problem" that trips people up, in my opinion.

Thanks.

[ColesCountyDem]

159. Got it!

Thanks for clarifying, and I agree. I also apologize if I was unclear.

Peace.

[dynasaw]

18. Pit Bulls Are Banned in Several Countries

The countries where pit bulls are illegal are: Belgium; Brazil; Denmark; England/UK; Finland; France; Canada (Winnipeg, Quebec); the Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Poland; Puerto Rico (a commonwealth of the United States); and Sweden.

Other breeds also banned in several countries.

http://listverse.com/2011/08/23/top-10-banned-dog-breeds/

Wonder why.

[pintobean]

21. Maybe the pit bull ate his publications.

[Drahthaardogs]

23. Statistics can be manipulated. But pits routinely kill people.

Few people should own those dogs.

[baldguy]

163. This is a vicious lie promoted by the like of Merritt Clifton.

Dogs no not "routinely" kill people. You have just lost any credibility you have been trying to claim.

[Drahthaardogs]

164. I am pretty sure ABC Local is credible

You are simply silly. You have nothing to refute the facts so you are lobbing balls hoping one sticks.

[baldguy]

168. And now I can see you didn't bother to *read* the article in the OP.

And that you've never seen how local news reporters operate.

[KG]

25. one of those wonderful pitties sent my little buddy to the vet hospital.

piss on pit bulls.

[jberryhill]

28. My friend was mugged by a Chinese guy

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. I normally don't read P/B threads ...

but the linked article caught my eye ...

This Barbara Kay person is a piece of work ... She based her opinion on someone she thought was an expert, an academic and an accomplished writer ... when shown that the person she put her faith in was/is a fraud ... she just digs in farther.

I wonder what her DU screen name is?

[dynasaw]

30. Today:Pit bulls' owner gets 15 years to life in prison for fatal mauling

"Pamela Devitt, 63, on a morning walk around her Littlerock neighborhood, where she was fatally attacked by four pit bulls.

"Her story shouldn't have ended in such a horrific way," Devitt[her husband] said just before the dogs' owner was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison.

Alex Jackson was convicted of second-degree murder in August after a jury found the 31-year-old knew his dogs were dangerous before the May 2013 attack.

Prosecutors argued that the dogs were involved in at least seven other altercations in the 18 months leading up to the attack on Pamela Devitt."

http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-dog-mauling-sentence-20141004-story.html

[Logical]

35. Good! nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

40. Those weren't Pits. Pit Bulls don't exist.

There is no such breed. It was probably four chihuahuas that shredded that lady but the lame stream media calls every dog a pit bull.

[Recursion]

41. Pit Bulls exist, but I'd be surprised if those were actually technically 4 pit bulls

People see a large dog and call it a "pit bull". (In fact, people shown actual pit bulls often remark that they seem too small because they don't actually know what a pit bull is.) It's pretty much exactly the same process by which people see a rifle with a pistol grip and call it an "assault rifle". Those are two phrases with actual technical definitions (and actual technical definitions are the only things you can ban), but they actual definitions are lost on the general public. (And activists bank on that ignorance.)

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. yeah yeah. I know.

A woman who rescues pit bulls gets killed by her own pit bull and it ain't a pit bull anymore. A guy who tells the 911 operator his two "full blooded" pits killed his mother and they become not-pit bulls. Another guy tells the operator his pit killed his father and it becomes a non pit.

[kwassa]

64. That's because it was a Brad Pitt Bull.

Looks tough, but it is a really nice dog, really.

[pnwmom]

87. This ASPCA disagrees with you.

And their study shows they were quite good at picking them out, based on appearance.

http://aspcapro.org/blog/2013/09/25/bully-this—-results-are-in…

The first finding I am sharing here impacted our ability to answer some of the questions we were hoping to answer in a significant way. We found out just how well Richmond SPCA staff did in visually identifying dogs likely to have Staffordshire terrier, American Staffordshire terrier or American bulldog as at least 25% of their breed make-up. Out of the 91 dogs, only 4 dogs had none of these breeds in their DNA, and 57% had one of those breeds as the primary breed.

SNIP

So what does this all mean? The population of dogs coming into the sheltering population in Richmond, VA, may be different than elsewhere, but at least at the Richmond SPCA, with a specific look and type, staff were quite good at breed identification—correctly identifying 96% of the dogs in the study as having at least 25% of the breeds noted above. Having the information as to what breeds the dog had in his ancestry did not significantly impact the measures we were monitoring. As we anticipated that more of the dogs would not have bully-type breeds in their reports, we were not able to dive into the question of “he looks like a X but he really is a Y”—something that may still be worth exploring in order to better understand adopter choice. And in my opinion, the big takeaway here is that there are adopters who specifically love and want dogs who look like pit-type dogs—so let’s get them home already!

[uppityperson]

88. "404 - Page not found"

[pnwmom]

89. I added quotes from the article, but I don't know why

the link won't work.

[uppityperson]

91. aha, I copy pasted the whole link, not just the blue part.

off to read and play with my pup (ball! ball! ball!)

[exboyfil]

36. The U.S. does an awful job collecting data on dog attacks

My daughter found this out when she did a paper on it last year. Two things to remember about dog attacks - the first is the propensity of the breed to attack in relation to other breeds and the second is the amount of damage that such an attack can inflict. The propensity to attack is both nature and nurture. You take a breeding pool and continue to breed those dogs that demonstrate the most aggression, then you would expect those dogs to be, on average, more aggressive than a comparable pool of dogs that are not bred with that goal in mind. Those aggressive dogs then enter the common domestic pet stream through adoptions, backyard breeders etc (this does not even take into account neighborhoods in which having an aggressive dog is part of the business model or seen as a status symbol).

In terms of doing damage pit bulls are probably up there, but a Rottweiler is probably more dangerous from strictly a bite force.

American Vet Med Association did a study on dog fatalities by breed. Pit bulls number one and Rotties number two.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf - Of course this needs to be compared to the per capita population of dogs

I just know the most scared I have ever been when walking was someone with two pit bulls on a leash. In their desire to get to me the individual was having a very difficult time keeping them restrained. If they got free my dog would probably be dead now. Also I played with a pit bull puppy at the shelter, and I was shocked at how powerful and aggressive it was. Its bites really hurt and it tore my socks in just the few seconds I was around it. It reminded me more of a wolf cub than a beagle, aussie or border collie puppy which I am more familiar.

[Sunlei]

38. Merritt Clifton, an investigative reporter and former editor of Animal People.has a lot of books.

would think most investigative reporters with published animal type reports would have 100s of books,"publications" in their personal library. He sounded deceptive in the 'statement', I agree.

Merritt Clifton, an investigative reporter and former editor of Animal People, currently editor of Animals 24-7. several reports over the years, relating to animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifton_report

[XemaSab]

50. I've never met a pit bull owner who wasn't a wanna-be tough guy

n/t

[baldguy]

78. Right. All Pit Bull owners are insecure in their masculinity...

Who'd a thunk that arrogant ignorance, unreasoning hatred & blatant sexism would go together?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

99. None of those dogs are Pit Bulls.

[baldguy]

101. Probably. Most of them are rescues, and are probably of the "Heinz 57" variety.

IOW, mutts. But that doesn't matter to most of the dog haters here. They would still be happy to see them dead simply because of the way they look.

That is the very definition of stereotyping. And the dog haters reaction is bigotry. And it's evil & wrong.

[Orrex]

108. Just to clarify one point here, so we're all on the same page

Fans of pit bulls claim the exclusive authority to identify as "pit bulls" any dogs that they decide make the cut. Equally, they have the exclusive authority to identify as "not pit bulls" any dogs that they decide don't represent the cherry-picked traits that they favor.

And any non-fan who dares to call a dog a pit bull is a hateful, evil, naive, childish, blind, clueless, stereotyping, stupid, maliciously ignorant, racist, classist, closed-minded, genocidal bigot, and a pedantic, laughable idiot besides.

Why is the level-headed fan club for these dogs given such wide latitude, but anyone who finds them less than adorable is commanded to "back that up?"

They would still be happy to see them dead simply because of the way they look.

Citation, please. Or are you just making shit up again?

That is the very definition of stereotyping. And the dog haters reaction is bigotry. And it's evil & wrong.

Ah, I see. You are just making shit up again.


Okay then.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

113. People who say they "run a Pit rescue" are mistaken or making things up.

People who say "pits were once called nanny dogs" are mistaken or making things up.

There are no Pits.

[boomer55]

52. except they have studies like this.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/03/pit_bulls_were_torontos_biggest_biters_before_the_ban.html

[baldguy]

57. And replies like this:

This article is built on spurious logic. Scapegoating one breed to pretend the problem isn't a much more complex issue than BSL ignores the reality that impotent, powerless, overcompensating tough guys can easily find an intimidating, highly loyal and aggressive breed to substitute for "pit bulls". The inadequacies in breeding, training, education, and recklessness of owners will not magically disappear with BSL. Secondly, it would indeed be shocking if the number of "pit bull" bites didn't decrease sharply. When you vilify, euthanize 1000's of "pit bulls", ban, and muzzle an entire breed, having dramatically lowered the number of pit bulls what other results are to be expected, other than "pit bull" bites will decrease. But you've done little to address the root problem: breeding practices, misinformation, poor training, reckless owners, uneducated dog owners....

As an owner of an English Bull Terrier, I fear for my preferred breed if this fallacious reasoning persists (as much as I don't care for Don Cherry, I wonder where the reputation & status of the breed would be without him). Many dog owners should also worry, should this kind of spurious thinking take hold. BSL is the quick answer not the right answer.

And articles like this:
There is no evidence Ontario’s Dog Owner’s Liability Act has resulted in fewer dog bites
http://www.thestar.com/life/2011/11/25/van_veen_wheres_the_data_that_shows_pit_bull_ban_is_working.html

And studies like this:
Toronto Humane Society Study Finds Breed Specific Legislation Has Not Reduced Dog Bites
https://www.facebook.com/notes/toronto-humane-society/ths-study-finds-breed-specific-legislation-has-not-reduced-dog-bites/384465083730
"If we want to reduce the number of dog bites we have to address the route cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals.” Said Ian McConachie, Senior Communicator at the Toronto Humane Society. “It is clear from these figures that the BSL aspects of the Dog Owners Liability Act has not worked to decrease the incidents of dog bites."

Pit bull ban not reducing dog bites in Ont.: THS
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/pit-bull-ban-not-reducing-dog-bites-in-ont-ths-1.507014#ixzz3FCe0fmR9

Ontario pit bull ban isn't working, Humane Society says
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/28/13747081.html

http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/pdfs/Breed_Specific_Legislation_Jan-14.pdf

--------------------------------

Basically, what you have here is a govt agency failing at it's job, trying to protect it's budget, and the animal professionals calling them out on their lies.

[Drahthaardogs]

68. What is your premise?

Do you really believe that pit bulls are not powerful aggressive breeds that when they do bite cause more damage than the average dog or is your premise that breed specific legislation does not help?

[baldguy]

69. Both.

Pit Bulls aren't some kind of magical, un-natural, uber-dangerous creature. They're dogs. They're just as aggressive & unaggressive as other dogs. They're just as strong as dogs of similar size. When in the rare instances of dogs that bite, similar sized dogs do a similar amount of damage.

The problem with BSLs is that they target the breed - which has repeatedly been shown not to be a factor in canine aggression toward humans - and not the behavior. Of the dog and of the humans that come in contact with it. Dogs bite because humans fail to act responsibly, by not training the dog properly, not socializing the dog properly, and by not controlling the dog properly. BSLs fail because they don't address the problem.

[Drahthaardogs]

72. Dogs yes. Dogs bred since the Roman times for a purpose.

Pit bulls are genetically predisposed as terriers and former fighting dogs to be powerful, have high prey drives, and have high fight drives. While not all dogs of the breed (especially a breed that is open to such indiscriminate breeding as pit bulls) have the aforementioned qualities, it certainly lies in the gene pool. You ever compared your standard ranch or feed lot quarterhorse to a real race horse?

I have aggressive dogs myself. They have the highest prey drive of any dog of hunting variety I have owned. Can I train around it? Absolutely. Can I use to my advantage? Of course I do, it is why I own them. Can I eliminate that genetic propensity? Hell no. It is there. Perhaps the most stunning moment was when my most docile, passive, female got hit with a porcupine slap while out in the field. She grabbed that porky by the head and dispatched him in about 10 seconds. I always considered her a lower drive dog. It opened my eyes that day and helped me become a better trainer over the years.


Have you ever been around a Belgian malinois vs. a good german-bred German shepherd bred for Schutzhund work or French Ring? Have you ever noticed that certain breedings among well known breeders are off-limits to the general public but only open to military or law enforcement? Do you know why that is?

[baldguy]

73. Were Pit Bulls originally bred to fight? Sure. 200 yrs ago.

They were bred to fight other dogs and specifically bred NOT to be aggressive toward their human handlers.

Just as German Shepherds were developed to herd sheep, small Terriers were developed to kill mice & rats, and Bull Dogs were developed to kill bulls for sport. But they ALL - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - were developed with the desire to please their human masters and to live in human society. Dogs that did show aggression were put down and not allowed to breed! Most people who own German Shepherds don't herd sheep, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have small Terriers don't let them chase & kill rats, they have the dog as a family member & companion. Most people who have Bull Dogs don't engage in bull-baiting with the dog, they have the dog as a family member & companion.

And most people who have dogs which are descended from the original "pit bulls" don't engage in dog fighting, they have the dog as a family member & companion.

Any dog that regularly displays aggression toward humans is the victim of abuse & neglect. Period. The breed does not matter.

[Drahthaardogs]

74. Your lack of dog knowledge is a problem.

I really cannot cover all of the ground with you that needs to be covered. I am sorry. I wish I had time or the inclination.

[baldguy]

75. Anyone such as you who blames all Pit Bulls and only Pit Bulls for the relatively few

unfortunate incidents involving all types of dogs (which is, indeed what BSLs do) shows not only a profound lack of dog knowledge, but also perpetuates the very neglect, irresponsibility, abuse & ignorance that CAUSES canine aggression toward humans.

[Drahthaardogs]

77. You have no breeding regulations

And the breed is a fucking mess because of it. Then you get people who believe all aggression is environmental and here we are...

[baldguy]

79. You have no requirement the media to tell the truth

with the lowest common denominator being ignorance & sensationalism. Then you get people who believe that there's an epidemic of dog bites & that every dog that bites is a Pit Bull. (They must be, because Faux Snooze sez so.) And here we are...

[Drahthaardogs]

80. Again what are disqualifying breeding faults for pit bulls

List them and show us all how responsible pit bull owners breed healthy mentally stable dogs

[baldguy]

81. It doesn't matter. BSLs ban every Pit Bull - even if it's the most stable dog in the universe.

Unless you treat each individual dog as an individual - and make THE HUMAN OWNER responsible for it's BEHAVIOR - you'll get nowhere.

[Drahthaardogs]

83. We are not talking about BSL here. We are talking about your belief that pits are not genetically

inclined to aggression. I call bullshit. For example you cite "German Shepherd Dogs" among other dogs as being bred to "not show man aggression". I know better than that because I have played the doggie games and I know lots of breeders of top quality GSD from working lines. If you knew this, you would know that in the FCI breed register (which is where most serious dog people get their dogs) you would know that GSD are put through a rigorous temperament test. This is because man aggression is not a fault, man aggression in improper situations is a disqualifying fault. The dog should be ready to fight, but it must have the brains to determine what is really a threat. You didn't know that. The FCI registry puts function ahead of form. All dogs are strictly regulated as far as breeding, and dogs must prove their ability before they can be bred.

I asked you in a an earlier post why is it that certain Schutzhund type GSD are only offered to military or law enforcement. You never answered. The truth is, most GSDs see French Ring and Schutzhund as a game, and are not overly serious about biting a human. Take the suit or the sleeve away, and they would not know what to do. The real serious dogs, dogs that are meant to do damage on command, are not fit for family homes. Breeders will breed these types of dogs from time to time from parents like them.

I have been around literally hundreds of serious dog people, studied breed books, and listened to endless conversations where folks talk about breeding not only for physical characteristics, but mental stability as well. The fact that you cannot even admit that yeah, as a breed in whole, pit bulls a fucking mess. This has been brought about by indiscriminate breeding with no consensus on breed standards and breeding for fighting dogs until lately.

I have a friend who runs Dogo Argentino's on hogs. Those dogs are machines and are aggressive as hell. But they are mentally sound. I would tend to agree with you that BSL does not do much for fixing a problem. But in all honesty, you sitting here and spewing the nonsense that pit bulls are jello and pudding is not helping either. These were historically serious working dogs bred for blood work. They are powerfully built and have a terrier's aggression. Many, over generations of non-selective breeding, do not have those traits. Still some, carry those genetic propensities and in the wrong place with the wrong people, they are a destructive force of nature.

If you want to make a difference, try to get pit bull owners together to from a strict breed club with strict breeding regulations. Hell, form your own and make human aggression a disqualifying breeding fault. Test the damned dogs. This way, if someone wants a pit bull that is NOT gentically predisposed to be aggressive, they have an option. Will it be 100%? No. Genetics never is. Will it help? Yes. It will.

Quit telling everyone that all you need is love and you can turn an aggressive dog into a gentle little lamb. That's bullshit and generations of dogmen and dog women know better.

[DirkGently]

119. Testing puts actual Pits below 121 other breeds in aggression.

That is actual expertise and actual testing, not a dog fancier's anecdotal claim or the hate and rage of uniformed people who simply call every aggressive animal they ever hear or read about a "pit bull."

Pit Bulls have once again scored BETTER than many dog breeds. Temperament evaluations by the American Temperament Test Society have given pit bull terriers a very high passing rate of 90.6 percent. The average passing rate for the other 121 breeds of dogs in the tests was only a low 77 percent.

These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers.

Pit bulls have gotten a bad rap due to superstitions and organized crime. They are not attackers and they are not baby killers. In fact, they have been known to make a better family dog than many breeds, including the Dalmatian.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pit-bulls-scoring-better-than-121-other-breeds-temperament-are-gentle-dogs

[Drahthaardogs]

135. No. You stated they have "been bred for companion animals for 200 years" so...

and that they are no longer bred for aggressiveness to men or other animals. So, please show me the pedigrees and the temperament testing. I want to see that YOUR dog

1) comes from a long line of family companion animals

2) has no actual fighting dogs at least 7 generations back

3) temperament tests, scores, litter results of siblings for at least 3 generations.


I can do this for my dog, my dog's grandparents, etc. However, I come from a responsible breeding program where people understand that genetics effect behavior. So please, show me all the selective breeding that went into making your pit a nice dog who is mentally sound.

So, please, show me these immaculate records for these loving, bred-for-family-pets animals.

In addition, that temperament test includes things like "noise shy" as a quality. It is NOT a test strictly for aggressive behavior. Half of all of the Spinoni failed, and they are about the most docile dog I have ever seen. I don't think you could make one bite you.

In addition, recent results (2013) have both the Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bill Terrier fail at about 15%. E.G. , ONE in every SEVEN DOGS FAILED! When you are a top five breed, that is a lot of dogs on the street with problems.

[elehhhhna]

111. I'm with you Drath. We accidentally adopted a Carolina Dog

weirdest, catlike bizarre dog ever. Mis-ID'd as a lab/shep mix.

Had dogs all my life and they do have natural traits (the Elkhound used to herd our kids away from the stairs and front door, etc. The lab wanted to retrieve everything and couldn't be kept out of the pool...) I know a few things about dogs and pits are creepy, imo, and the owners of those I am aware of are either tough guy wannabe's or not equipped to train them. A young woman I know with a 5 year old kid just got a Cano. This scares the heck out of me. She's a dingbat already and the dog will not be trained properly.

Anyhoo, rambling here...thank you for your contribution to this thread.

[meaculpa2011]

53. My neighbor had a pit bull.

Responsible owner. Never off the leash while out of the house. He always claimed that the bad publicity was due to owners that didn't know what they were doing.

Last year the dog took a snarling run at their toddler. Jerry lunged between them and the dog locked onto his forearm. He was out of work for two months.

I'm not a dog expert or even a dog lover, but I've been accosted at the park on two occasions by pit bulls that were off the leash and it was scary--despite their owners' assurances.

[DirkGently]

154. A mastiff mix across the street stalked our CAR.

After the market crash, we got a lot of rentals. First time I'd seen a dog tied to a tree in the front yard. When he wasn't so tied, he was loose, and I watched him stalk my SO's Honda Civic, stiff legged, ears flat, like it was an intruder in his territory. That dog was scary as hell, and 30 lbs heavier than any of the "pit bull" breeds.

Anecdotes are great, but they are evidence of nothing. Dogs can be aggressive. Big, aggressive dogs can be dangerous. There is nothing magically dangerous about the big terrier breeds, save for the fact idiots like to breed mean ones.

[SheilaT]

55. I'd be more sympathetic to the claims that pit bulls

aren't so bad, if I'd at least occasionally read about some other breed fatally attacking a human. And reply 53 by meaculpa 2011 tells an all too common story. I'm guessing that the neighbor really was a good guy who honestly thought it was the other owners who were doing things wrong. But in the end, the pit bull attacked a child.

I am getting so I more and more dislike dogs of any kind. Lately my neighbors' dogs (several neighbors, several dogs) will bark and bark and bark and it's beyond annoying. At least cats don't meow so loudly that you can hear them from across the street. Oh, and cat owners don't make the assumption that of course everyone loves cats and takes the cat out everywhere.

[baldguy]

56. I hope this is some kind of stealth sarcasm, because...

[SheilaT]

94. LOL!

In other dogs and SheilaT related information, I am apparently a poodle goddess. I really am even less fond of poodles than I am of most breeds, but whenever I meet up with one, they just start slobbering with affection and it's quite clear (and creepy) that they totally worship me. Weird. I don't treat poodles any differently than I treat other dogs, but they ADORE me.

My younger son, on the other hand, is some sort of a cat god. When he had first learned to walk and so we started making short walks in our little neighborhood, as we walked around cats that I'd never seen before would come racing out to greet him. If I walked alone, hah! Not a cat to be seen anywhere. With Jonah, they could hardly wait to rush up and let him know how much he was revered.

[DrDan]

59. pit bull ban has worked in Toronto over that past decade

For now, though — and for better or worse — the ban appears to have done what it set out to do.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/03/pit_bulls_were_torontos_biggest_biters_before_the_ban.html

[baldguy]

61. All that proves is that there are fewer Pit Bulls registered in Toronto.

Which makes since. After all, they're banned.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

Toronto Humane Society Survey: BSL Does Not Work

Pit bull ban fails to reduce dog bites Toronto Sun

Pit bull ban hasn’t cut dog bites Toronto Star

The whole point is to reduce dog bites. BSLs utterly fail to do that.

[DrDan]

63. read the article

bites as a % of total population dropped from 9.4% to 2.6%

bans work!

[baldguy]

65. The Toronto Human Society disagrees.

[DrDan]

67. the facts

in 2004 (a year before the ban) - 984 registered pit bulls, 168 bites, 17.1% bites as % of total population
in 2013 - 501 registered pit bulls, 13 bites, 2.5% bites as % of total population


pretty darned effective

[baldguy]

70. Get those numbers from Merritt Clifton?

[DrDan]

71. right from that Toronto Star link I provided to you

[baldguy]

76. Which, again just proves that there are fewer Pit Bulls registered in Toronto.

The actual number of dog bites has not been reduced. Which is supposed to be the objective - so it has failed.

Or do you not understand the difference between a ratio of a number and the actual number? Yeah, that must be it. Your dogma has clouded your ability to understand 5th grade math concepts.

[DrDan]

82. Your problem is not with statistics

It's with arithmetic

[baldguy]

121. Your utter & complete faith in the charlatan Merritt Clifton has damaged your reasoning ability.

Fewer Pit Bulls = fewer bites from Pit Bulls. Not fewer bites overall.

[DrDan]

146. I used NO info from him - LOOK AT THE ARTICLE I POSTED from the Toronto Star

Let me make it simple.

In 2004 there were 984 pit bulls registered in Toronto. In 2013, there were 501.

NO ONE HAD TO GIVE UP THEIR DOG!!!!!!!!!

Owners were made responsible - muzzles and significant fines when necessary.

DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO OWNER RESPONSIBILITY???????

In 2004 there were 168 pit bull bites. In 2013 there were 13.

DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO REDUCING PIT BULL BITES?????

In 2004 there were 17 bites per 100 pits. In 2013 that dropped to 2.6. Rottweilers now surpass pits in this statistic.

ALL THAT DATA IS IN THE LINK I POSTED!!!!!!!

Now, what could you possibly object to? Less bites. Another breed with more bites per capita? No one losing their dog?

If you would simply look at this objectively, you would see it is in YOUR interest to legislate similarly.

But NOOOOOOOO . . . because this legislation deals with pits, you object biting off your own nose to spite the face.

[baldguy]

167. Right. BSLs deal with Pit Bulls. They **DON'T** deal with the issue of dog bites.

Therefor they don't reduce dog bites. Can you see the problem here?

[DrDan]

169. pit bites in Toronto down from 168 to 13 (down 92%!!!!!!!)

while the population of pits only drops from 984 to 501 (down 49%)

As I said, you have a problem with basic arithmetic if you do not see that is a successful program.

I asked before, which do you object to - people keeping their dogs (they kept them in Toronto), reduced pit bites (DOWN 92%), or another dog becoming the percapita bite leader (NOW ROTTWEILERS).

Please tell me which of the above you object to?

[baldguy]

170. One more time: Dog bites in Toronto have not decreased in any significant way.

Last edited Tue Oct 7, 2014, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)

And since that is the advertised objective of BSL, it has failed.

And did you even notice that your chart makes no sense? Just look at 2001: The breed labeled "Pit Bull Terrier" accounted for 34% of dogs, right behind it is "All pit bull breeds" which they list as "includes the four breeds affected by the ban: pit bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier and Staffordshire bull terrier" for 24%, then below is "Staffordshire Bull terrier" at 16%.

Don't you think "All pit bull breeds" at 24% would include "Pit Bull Terrier" at 34% plus "Staffordshire Bull terrier" at 16% plus whatever percent is made up by "American pit bull terrier" and "American Staffordshire terrier"? Your chart says it does.

Sorry, but 24 ≠ 34 + 16 + whatever. Your numbers just don't add up. That's one indication of bullshit propaganda from Rob Ford's cronies in Animal Services.

Now, when you ask the people who don't have a political axe to grind, like the Toronto Humane Society, you'd find that there were 4000-5000 dog bites per year before BSL, and about 4000-5000 dog bites per year after BSL, at least up to 2009:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/toronto-humane-society/ths-study-finds-breed-specific-legislation-has-not-reduced-dog-bites/384465083730



And if we accept the article you've posted as gospel truth (which I don't), it seems that dog bites actually INCREASED to 9219 in 2013 after the ban has been in place for 8 yrs.

BSLs always fail, because the assumptions they're based on are lies, and as such BSLs bring more harm to people when enacted.

[DrDan]

171. Bites down 92% while the pit population goes down only 49%

Owners get to keep their dogs

(READ THE ARTICLE)

And you don't see that as a success

just amazing, but expected from an idealogue

[baldguy]

172. Dog bites have not gone down. Dog bites have GONE UP!

Just under 5000 in 2009, over 9000 in 2013. Can't you read?

[DrDan]

173. Look at the Toronto data - not the province

The ban applied to Toronto

READ THE ARTICLE

[baldguy]

174. Read your own fucking article!

9219 dog bites in Toronto in 213. Up from ~4800 in 2009.

Ask yourself: Is BSL supposed to reduce dog bites? If so, why doesn't Animal Control publicize the plain raw numbers? Because, in spite of what it's advertized & promoted by anti-dog extremists as BSL is not intended to reduce dog bites! It has nothing to do with public safety.

BSL has failed in Toronto. We've known this since 2010. BSL has failed to reduce dog bites everywhere it's been implemented, and no amount of propaganda, lies or manipulations will change that.

[DrDan]

175. Hahaha

Way to try to hide the pit data

[baldguy]

176. Sez the guy tauting an article that deliberately obfuscates the raw data.

The guy that believes 9000 is less than 5000. The guy who thinks 32 + 16 = 24.

They guy that dreams of more people getting bitten by dogs, as long as it can be twisted to support his evil dogma.

[DrDan]

177. Pit bites down 92%

Irrefutable

Even the most offensive, juvenile profanity cannot deflect from the success in Toronto

[baldguy]

186. Dog bites up 91%.

Irrefutable. They could massacre all the Pit Bulls in the world and they wouldn't reduce dog bites - which would nonetheless make you cold, black heart happy.

If you insist on calling that a "success", you'll be the embodiment of offensive, juvenile profanity.

[DrDan]

188. At least I can source my data

[baldguy]

189. Toronto Humane Society.

[DrDan]

190. Toronto Star - that article you refuse to acknowledge

[baldguy]

192. Toronto Star, you say?

Why Ontario’s pit-bull ban should end
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/29/walkom_why_ontarios_pitbull_ban_should_end.html

Pit bull ban hasn’t cut dog bites
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2010/04/28/pit_bull_ban_hasnt_cut_dog_bites.html

Don't ban pit bulls
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/10/07/dont_ban_pit_bulls.html

Of course, you just want to look at the one article you posted, all the while ignoring all the bits of the self-same article that merely destroy your argument utterly: That dog bites increased from 4800 in 2009 to 9219 in 2013.

Of course, Toronto has other media outlets, too:
Michael Bryant’s pit bull ban fails to totally eliminate dog-on-human violence: THS report
http://www.torontolife.com/informer/random-stuff-informer/2010/04/30/michael-bryants-pit-bull-ban-fails-to-totally-eliminate-dog-on-human-violence-ths-report/

[DrDan]

193. Pit bull bites down 92% while population drops only 49%

It must be the increased owner responsibility that you object to.

[DrDan]

195. The pit bull ban has reduced pit bull bites

A success

Resorting to personal insults is sure sign of desperation.

Why does owner responsibility scare you so much?

[Captain Stern]

213. Seems to me the total number of dog bites isn't that useful a number on it's own.

We'd also need to know the total number of dogs, so we'd have a 'bite per dog' number.

From the article:

While bite totals have remained fairly steady year-to-year, the licensed dog population has more than doubled since 2005.

If that statement is true, then the rate for dog bites has indeed fallen.

[Rex]

66. I always wondered who started the BULLSHIT about pit bulls.

I know you and I don't agree on a lot of things, but on this issue we are in 100% agreement. Thanks for the info, very illuminating.

[pnwmom]

84. The only dog that's ever ripped into one of mine, leaving us with a $900 vet bill,

was a pit bull mix whose owner didn't even apologize, and disappeared while my son attended to our injured dog.

I think the pit bull often attracts bad owners.

[seveneyes]

90. Ban all breeding of Pit Bulls

There is no need to propagate such a dangerous breed of killers. Pick a nice animal out from a shelter and stop breeding these killers.

[roody]

112. Ban all breeding please! At least until

the shelters are empty.

[pnwmom]

124. They will never be empty because they have become the shelters of the world.

We should be funding spay and neuter campaigns in Mexico, for example, instead of sending their Chihuahuas to places like Seattle.

Same thing is happening in Canada.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/give-us-your-mangy-masses/

Somehow, without notice, Canada has become a refuge to the huddled masses of the canine world, as thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—flood into the country each year. It’s a Wild West sphere, with no one tracking the number of rescuees entering the country, nor their countries of origin. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which regulates the importation of animals, has recorded a spike over the past five years in the number of adult dogs imported annually for commercial use, from 150 to 922 (some rescued dogs are included in the “commercial use” category because organizations collect adoption fees to offset costs). But that represents a fraction of the inflow, because some rescuees enter the country designated as pets rather than commercial-use animals, and because border officers don’t keep count of the dogs they inspect for proof of rabies and for general health. One Calgary-based agency contacted by Maclean’s, Pawsitive Match Inc., says it trucked in about 800 dogs from the southwestern U.S. and Mexico in 2012 alone. It continues to receive another 80 or so per month.

Meantime, animal rescue organizations from this country are a fast-proliferating sub-group on Petfinder.com, where North American non-profits and charities line up homes for needy animals. As many as 80 new Canadian groups join each year, and while not all import their dogs, enough do that a few mouse clicks can raise the profiles of canines from such far-flung locales as Greece, Taiwan and Iran. Some must be flown to Canada; others have already made the trip and are waiting in foster homes for adoptive families.

[roody]

166. World Vets is working on it.

http://worldvets.org/volunteer/upcoming-projects/

[baldguy]

162. Most of the nice dogs in shelters are Pit Bulls.

[MannyGoldstein]

103. Pitties are just playful

Adorable!

[DrDan]

148. no different than any other breed . . . I read that right here

[MannyGoldstein]

151. Any well-muscled dachshund could do that, too

After smoking a golfball-sized chunk of crystal meth.

[JonLP24]

104. Facts don't seem to make a difference in this debate

So I give up. The one breed with the name "pit bull", American Pit Bull Terrier features many dogs that are small and couldn't do much damage even if they wanted to so if you have BSL that prohibits "pit bulls" obviously can't have APBT.

You're so much more likely to be hurt & injured from so many other things. By and large, most dogs if any breed don't want to hurt you -- even the loose dogs barking just wanted me to go away.

[joeglow3]

120. Sweet. Will our 7 year old friend grow back his penis and testicles now?

Now that we know the pit bull that tore them off when he was three was just a product of a charlatan.

[baldguy]

125. Are the 20 million Pit Bulls in America all collectivly guilty of this?

No, they are not.

[baldguy]

128. 30 vs 30,000

Deaths from dog bites per year vs deaths from guns. No comparison.

(And just incidentally, Pit Bulls are implicated in about 2 of those, on average.)

Using your logic, every gun owner should be put to death.

[joeglow3]

129. Pit humpers trying to manipulate stats more

100 times more deaths and about 100 times more guns. Thus, statistically, they have the same death rate.

So again, how do you feel about guns?

[baldguy]

133. Try four.

Well, 3.75 anyway. There are about 80 million dogs in this country and about 300 million guns.

Four times more guns; a thousand times more deaths. Again, no comparison.

(And it's even worse when you look at the 20 million Pit Bulls & Pit Bull mixes: there are fifteen times more guns and fifteen thousand more gun deaths.)

[DirkGently]

130. And you think the "kind" of dog was the problem?

A relative of mine was once attacked, unprovoked, by a man of another race. I am told, although he never spoke such a thing in front of me, that he distrusted "those people" the rest of his life.

Was his logic sound? Was it any different than yours?

Why do you think a horrific anecdote can fairly be applied to millions of animals you know literally nothing about?

Do you think other "kinds" of dogs have not been involved in horrific attacks, or that dogs called pit bulls behave in that way because of the "kind" of dog they are?

You have commented elsewhere on "facts." Here is a fact for you. Actual testing of actual pit bulls shows they score well above average in temperament, above 121 other breeds.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pit-bulls-scoring-better-than-121-other-breeds-temperament-are-gentle-dogs

How does that fact fit into your logic?

[joeglow3]

132. Pit humpers now claiming spoons are more dangerous than guns

That is the logic you are employing. I guarantee there are more wooden spoons in this nation being used as a form of punishment or as a weapon than there are guns. By your incredibly shitty logic, we should drop all concern of guns, as spoons are more dangerous.

[DirkGently]

139. Well, no, the logic is that Pits have better temperaments than

most other breeds. That's not a kitchen implement analogy, it is a thing called "actual testing," which is generally considered more reliable than people on the internet shrieking about extrapolating questionable newspaper accounts and anecdotes onto an entire group of animals based on their own fear and ignorance.

Pit Bulls have once again scored BETTER than many dog breeds. Temperament evaluations by the American Temperament Test Society have given pit bull terriers a very high passing rate of 90.6 percent. The average passing rate for the other 121 breeds of dogs in the tests was only a low 77 percent.

These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers.

Pit bulls have gotten a bad rap due to superstitions and organized crime. They are not attackers and they are not baby killers. In fact, they have been known to make a better family dog than many breeds, including the Dalmatian.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pit-bulls-scoring-better-than-121-other-breeds-temperament-are-gentle-dogs

There is a good gun analogy though, if you like those. "Assault weapons." People who like them point out, correctly, that we define those by "what they look like." A folding stock, a bayonet mount, etc. Things that, on their own, don't make a weapon "more dangerous."

Others point out that there is significance to what we call things though. An asshole with fantasies of waging war on the government or mowing down a food court does not want the very powerful and dangerous weapon we call "a deer rifle." They want something with a tough-sounding name, and scary looks. It may not actually be more dangerous, but it will be in their hands, because of the asshole wielding it.

The same goes for a dog, to an extent. Call a dog an "American Staffordshire Terrier," and people look around for the cute puppy and don't sweat it. And no wanna-be tough guy will buy it. For people who want to scare others, and for people who are easily scared these days, only "Pit Bull" strikes the proper tone of bad-assery

So in both cases, you have people focused on a name and a look, and you have a more dangerous result because of the asshole behind the purchase, even if they don't even know what they have.

We could maybe ban the name "Pit Bull." That would take the thrill out for the bad owner element, who don't know what the hell kind of dog they have anyway, and will be sure any animal they have is a menace, and it would take the fear out for people who are so fatuous and terrified that they think they can tell everything about a dog by what people call it.

[Sunlei]

141. because they're a cheap breed, very popular and 'the poor mans gun', a status symbol

look at craigs list always plenty for sale. http://houston.craigslist.org/search/pet?query=pittbull

[DirkGently]

147. It's become a generic term, is what it is.

Big dog, broad head = "pit bull." It's meaningless for dogs people typically buy and own. There are three actual breeds, which if you were to obtain from a reputable breeder, would simply be big terriers with generally goofy personalities, as are a lot of the normal dogs owned by normal people with a half an inkling how to treat and socialize animals.

But now there are a brazillion "pit bulls" born of the craze over the scary name and the 1980s resurgence in dog fighting. And there is the insistence of everyone who WANTS a dangerous animal that it must be a "pit bull," and yes, that is the one "breed" (because it really is not reliably a breed at all at this point) that anyone can come by.

And there is the breezy assumption that any horrible dog anywhere bigger than a housecat is obviously a "pit bull."

It's a cultural phenomenon, not a reliable trait of a cognizable "type" of dog. Disappear everything we call "pit bull" tomorrow, and next week Mastiffs and Akitas will be roaming the junkyards and terrifying the joggers.

[Sunlei]

184. sure, a lot of mutts are missIDed (i do DNA on my mutts) but pitts are in top 10 in popular 'pets'

anytime a breed is cheap and popular there are more bad homes & bad owners, and more of that popular breed getting a bad rap because of that.

[Ligyron]

183. Few people, and no poor ones could ever afford a real pitbull.

a mixed breed scary looking hog wrasslin dog sure.

But nothing along lines descended from Patrick's, Carver or Boudreaux for instance.

[Sunlei]

185. more people mating those 'cheap poor quality pitts?',selling them cheap to bad homes.

Those bad homes tend to not spay or neuter. The male and female dogs who live untrained, many times neglected, chained in their yard, tend to have big litters.

Then the bad home has a pack of unsocialized dogs. Those 'packs' are very dangerous to society.

[etherealtruth]

142. "Pit Humpers" .... are you intentionally trying to be rude and ignorant by using this term?

... or is there some intelligent point you would like to make? Whether you care to acknowledge it or not ... "pit bulls" are living breathing beings ... they have been abused and mistreated by humans (they may or may not be prone to aggression) but to compare "ridding society" of these living, breathing, feeling beings to ridding society of inanimate objects (guns or whatever) shows an astounding lack of compassion (and a multitude of other not very complimentary adjectives)

[Orrex]

143. Well, one of his three posts was hidden for using that term.

Rightly so IMO.

[etherealtruth]

145. Ah, very good! Thanks for the info

[rjsquirrel]

179. Hmmmm, Google scholar is your friend

Can't speak to the quality of Dr. Clifton's work, but the OP doesn't know much about science or research. JSTOR is not a comprehensive archive for science journals,and skews toward the humanities, plus it has a moving window that, depending on the journal, means it indexes articles at least three years old and often five or more.

But a quick search on Google Scholar does indeed turn up some visible peer reviewed publications.

So OP, you look dumb here. Your critique of Clifton is just false.

I am a real dog lover. I grew up with numerous dogs, including large breeds. I've interacted with many pit bulls ("pitties" is such bogus bs). Some were very sweet. But many were not. The breed has an objectively large statistical paw print, as it were, as a breed highly at risk for attacking children, pets, and strangers. Pit Bulls have been specifically over-bred for aggressive behavior in the US over the last twenty years, and you cannot know in advance if the one you are approaching is sweet and well socialized or dangerous and aggressive. If you make a mistake the aggressive ones have the ability to kill, much more so than most other large breeds. Actuarial science does not lie and there is a good reason no insurance company will cover your Pit Bull except at an exorbitant rate.

I had a small terrier once who was mauled by a Pit whose owner I insisted he was "sweet" and "well socialized," until he wasn't. Even on a leash he nearly killed my dog, until I was forced to nearly kill the Pit, which I did right in front of the owner still standing there holding her stupid leash, with a very large tree branch. It probably had to be euthanized, at least I hope so, and my dog took months to recover fully.

So the hell with your emotional defense of this breed. The burden is on owners to insure, restrain, train, and accept liability for a statistically dangerous breed. Some pit bulls are nice. Many are very, very dangerous, and bred and trained to be so. With jaws of steel.

If you've never looked into the eyes of an attacking pit bull, cut me a break. I've been bitten by several dogs in my life, including a GSD and an English bulldog. Neither one scared me away from their breeds. But pits are another story. They are not trustworthy unless you know the dog well.

So if you want to own one, keep it away from other people and dogs. But I favor making the breed illegal.

[intaglio]

180. Err, you did not actually bother to read the article, did you?

If you had bothered to do that you would have found that a very wide search by the HuffPo author was made. Citations are NOT peer reviewed publications, just citation.

[baldguy]

187. If you had any clue as to how to work the Google machine,

you'd know Clifton was no doctor of any kind.

[intaglio]

181. Dangerous dogs or dangerous owners?

For 11 years in the UK I was a utility meter reader, this job involved me visiting between 200 and 300 homes, farms and businesses per day on normal duties or 30 - 50 on special duties. In all that time I was threatened by dogs perhaps 5 times per year, whilst attacks happened about 5 times in total during that whole time - and one "bite".

Dogs that threatened me varied from Great Danes down to Teacup Yorkshire Terriers, none were any form of the bull terrier type. Threats were often my own fault, I went into a garden (yard) not realising that the dog was running free and the dog defended its territory. In other cases the dog was poorly socialised and the owner could not or would not control the dog, Traveller (Gypsy) sites were particularly bad and many of the dogs there were kept for fighting, the fighting dogs were not allowed to run free. In none of these cases was I bitten because the dogs only wanted me to leave, they were not hunting only defending.

The 5 attacks were as follows:

1) A Boxer defending it's owner and garden pounced, crashing into my chest as I opened the gate. There was no warning from either owner or dog and the owner did nothing to control the dog. I did not fall and pushed the dog back inside the yard shutting the gate. This attempt at a push over I have found is normal for mastiff type dogs. I found out from neighbours that the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) were regular visitors to the property because of the animal.

2) An Alsatian owned by an elderly woman which, by all accounts, was confined to the house and not permitted to see humans other than the woman or her son. This poor dog attempted to attack through a glass front door, luckily the glass held. The dog was too strong for the poor lady.

3) The farm with 3 Border Collies and a farmer who did not want visitors. They attacked me as a pack and this was one of the few times I used my "Bite Back" spray. No bites but if I had gone down I would have suffered. The farmer eventually came out but his method of control was to thrash the dogs. As a note; generally all farm dogs were always a problem until the farmer vouched for you but then they would remember you and play.

4) The Teacup Yorkshire Terrier that tried to bite me whilst his owner said "Who's a fluffy little lovey!" The only reason there was no bite was because it could not open its mouth wide enough to nip.

5) A Springer Spaniel defending the youth of the house whilst the owners were away. I was able to get to a place of safety before worse happened.

Note that the only link between these incidents was the owner's failure to control or train the animal.

Oh, the one "bite" was a Parson Jack Russell who saw me on the road an jumped up with its mouth open, a tooth caught me on the way down. Dog bites, because of the danger of infection had to be reported and treated.

[Sunlei]

198. England grew out of their dog fighting days in the 1800s when they banned some animal fights

In the USA, problem is the people who fight the dogs & police who ignore dog fights as a crime, who cause the most harm to society. Many of our states list dog fighting, animal cruelty as a minor violation not worthy of police focus. The usa-Media drums up the fear and BSLaws spread across the lands. The dog fights, exposure of small children to horrific violence & animal cruelty continues.

Dog fights are an accepted part of many areas of Americas culture & society. Young children participate & view this violence in the USA. A Veterinarian visited a class of 10 year olds in West Chicago * to talk about careers as a Vet. He asked how many children had seen a dog fight? all the kids raised their hands. Police ignore the violence because it's inside & out of public view.


*about 36.25 on this documentary video.

[intaglio]

199. Oh how very wrong

dog fighting still goes on. Please note I mentioned the traveller sites where such dogs are commonly found; even here they are contained and controlled.

Please take your back preconceptions to the fantasy land they came from

[Sunlei]

200. sure you have 'gangbangers' who fight animals, but your society goes after animal cruelty-

much more than the USA society does.

[intaglio]

212. It still does not alter the fact that I have never been attacked by pit bulls

despite the job being one of the 2 most vulnerable to dog attacks.

The breeds that made me fear the most were the St Bernard and the Border Collie. Dogs I most trusted were Bull Terriers, Rottweilers and Standard Poodles, all of which have a bad reputation.

[Ligyron]

201. Chicago dogs like the one in video are usually down from Corvino lines

[Sunlei]

202. whatever, point is the USA has a HUGE, HUGE dog fighting industry..that is ignored.

some are low class, kids/gangbangers fighting dogs in basements & abandoned buildings. exposing children to horrific violence.

Others in say in the 'Vick leagues' place high dollar bets, their 'rings' can be in the back of a semi trailer with closed circuit cameras.

They throw away 'loser dogs' , lots of them end-up in our dog pounds, some end up stray, unsocialized and hurt people/animals.

The usa can do all the breed bans they want, that will not stop the huge dog fighting problem the usa has today.

[Ligyron]

182. Most people have no idea what a "Pit bull" is

and most have never even seen one.

Yes, I said Never.

They can't even produce a cogent definition of what the Dog "Pit bull" is.

Oh, I know - it's like the famous "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" school of reality. and they are almost always wrong.

[KamaAina]

191. Extra butter on mine, please.

[Sunlei]

196. Our society needs to be harsher on dog fighters & bad owners, not the 'dog breeds.'

[IVoteDFL]

210. About the muzzle in public business

Could one use a Gentle Leader? It's not enclosed like the one in the picture but it does tighten around the dog's nose when he gets too rambunctious and is supposed to correct them naturally. IE snap down on their nose like their mother would to correct her puppies. It came highly recommended from my vet when the Ex and I cared for a chow/shepherd mix that was wildly out of control.

[Sunlei]

211. No, the law requires a full muzzle. I use a gentle leader for training some dogs, works great!

Especially good with use the regular collar and leash for walking, and the gentle leader & a second leash as a training aid.

IMO, the gentle leader is not secure enough to use alone.(the snaps can break & the leader slips off easy)

[snooper2]

197. I was going to get a Pit Bull but my vet said she wouldn't give him a circumcision

kind of fucked up if you ask me