Reply to Are pitbull mixes safer?

Forum Index » Pets

Reply to "Are pitbull mixes safer?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

Conversely, my shelter dog who for 10 years I believed to be a 'pit bull' (not actually a breed) is actually a 75/25 boxer-bulldog mix.  All dogs are individuals.  I've met Goldens who would rather bite  a stranger's hand off than be pet by them, it just depends on the dog's early exposures and current management in combination with their genetic temperament. [/quote]

This is such a disingenuous argument, everyone knows what a person means by "pit bull", just like everyone knows what you mean by "chihuahua", or "Old English Sheep Dog" or "Collie". However, if you want to pick this term apart, you can refer to "Pit Bull Type" dogs, which typically refers to four  very closely related dog breeds: the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Bully. The APBT and the Staffi are so closely related, they can be dual registered as AmStaff with AKC and APBT with UKC. Your anecdotal evidence of knowing a couple Golden Retrievers that would bite someone's hand does not change the fact that "Pit Bull Type" dogs commit most of the severe dog maulings and fatal attacks in this country. It is highly dependent on the dog's genetic temperament, and love does not change this. Pit Bull Type dogs are genetically prone to aggression. All dogs are not simply individuals, they are members of a breed that has certain physical and behavior characteristics. That is why you cannot teach a blood hound to guard sheep, or a Boston Terrier to herd cows. [/quote]

This whole argument is based on the premise that all dogs are intentionally bred, which for most mutts is just so obviously not true. And even if it were - if there were a massive underground operation breeding pit bull mixes to fill suburban shelters - do you know how many dogs a dog fighter has to produce to end up with a handful that can/will fight?!  Hundreds!  And that is a human being specifically trying to create the most 'dangerous' pit bulls.  I'm not going to argue with you that bully-type dogs are very strong; that many have high prey drives; and that their prevalence in shelters means that many of them are problematically under-socialized.  But those are correlative, not causative, and could apply to any large-breed dog.  Many rescues across the country are seeing a resurgence in problematic German Shepherds as those have become the 'protection' dogs of choice; personally, I don't trust GSDs around children. But I also believe that should problems occur, it is the fault of the owner/handler.[/quote]

NP. Kind, responsible people aren't out there breeding these dogs. Pits are intentionally bred to fight, and if a pit isn't game enough for fighting for sport, some chump will adopt it from the shelter and let it snuggle with the kiddos, because they don't believe in genetics. For every Golden who would rather bite a stranger's hand than pet them, there are 10 pit bulls that would rather just kill that Golden at the dog park, then rip the face off your toddler. Statistically, they are far, far more likely to kill and maim than any other breed, and not every pit owner is a bad person or bad pet owner; it's just the breed's nature.

[img]https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2018/09/20180914_Deadly_Dogs_Forbes.jpg[/img]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/?sh=1fb597f962f8[/quote]

[img] https://i0.wp.com/www.animals24-7.org/wp-content/uploads/PicsArt_07-06-06.58.31.jpg?w=742&ssl=1[/img]

Using this info, we can do some rough math.

Let’s say there are 35,700 Rottweilers in the us. In a 13 year span, there were 45 fatal Rottweiler attacks. So in one year, there were 45/13= 3.46 attacks. Out of 35,700 Rottweilers, that would be 3.46/35700 = 0.0097 % = one in 10,313 chance of a Rottweiler killing someone.

Let’s say there are 152,678 pit/pit mixes in the us. In a 13 year span, there were 284 fatal attacks. So in one year, there are 284/13 = 21.85 attacks. Out of 152,678 pit/mixes, that would be a 21.85/152,678 = 0.014% = one in 6989 chance of a pit/pit mix killing someone.

Let’s say there are 119,680 labs and Goldens in the us. And of these let’s assume 65% are labs, so 71,808. In a 13 year span, there are 9 fatal attacks. So in one year, there are 9/13 = 0.69 attacks. Out of 71,808 labs, that would be a 0.69/71,808 = 0.00096% = one in 103,723 chance of killing someone.

Rottweiler - 1:10,313 chance
Pit/pit mix -1:6,989 chance
Lab - 1:103,723 chance

Obviously this a rough calculation, but we make do with the numbers we have. Pits are ~15x more likely to fatally attack than a lab in the us.

Does this mean they should banned? Rottweilers are 10 times more likely to kill someone vs a lab, but there aren’t as many people out there advocating a ban on them. How many deaths are too many? If it were one, then all dogs would be banned. In any case, it’s always helpful to have a per capita number to compare, not just absolutes. [/quote]

Oops, my linking skills are weak. Here is the article with number of dogs by breed

https://www.animals24-7.org/2021/07/07/dog-breed-census-2021-labs-hounds-top-list-pit-bulls-come-in-third/[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics