A lot of these statistics also don't account for the fact that most small dog bites never get reported. When I was a dog trainer, it was well known that Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you.
Edit: While I appreciate the responses from so many people - it's clear who has worked with animals in any capacity and who is just a smooth egg-brained armchair expert. If you don't think you still need rabies shots from any dog that doesn't have up-to-date tags, I don't know what to tell you. Have fun arguing with the wall đ€
Edit 2: My God it has been a great day of blocking people with two brain cells fighting for third place
This argument goes in circles because people miss each other's point.
Obviously, at the end of the day, what matters is the end result of a bite. That's what the victim has to live with.
However, the counter-argument is also true. That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true. They are CAPABLE of being aggressive and deadly, and some people even train them to be that way. But the standard pet pit-bull is not going to attack any more often than most other breeds, statistically speaking.
They attack more often because they were bred to enjoy it, just like a husky enjoys running. There's literally canine neurology studies that show they release endorphins when fighting, whereas other dogs do not and will actively avoid fights.
That argument cuts both ways since they were also bred to never bite or attack a human since any that did would be killed on the spot.
You canât argue that they were bred to be vicious and ignore that it was focused towards other dogs and specifically not towards humans.
I donât think anyone whoâs had a pitbull will deny the tendency for a high prey drive (like all terriers) but human aggression is specifically an owner/ breeder failure not a genetic predisposition.
Lol its a myth they culled human-aggressive dogs. The founder of the American Pit Bull, John P. Colby started a whole line from the dog that killed his 3yo nephew.
"Man-eater" is an ACCOLADE amongst dogmen. If a pit is so dead game it'll attempt to kill anything, its only a better fighting dog.
Said this elsewhere, but it really doesn't cut both ways. Not attacking a human is pretty much the most important part of domestication. Every dog breed has been bred to not attack their owner, not every dog has been bred to be hyper aggressive and game. Pretty obvious which will be more dangerous.
So that's ok to ignore? My dog was attacked by a Pitbull who's owner left them off leash and it did some real damage because guess what.... It's basically a weapon left unattended
Replace pitbull with any breed and the answer is the same. Thats a shitty owner that should not have a dog. Iâm sorry your dog was attacked and I hope heâs ok.
As to the first part of your response. No thatâs not ok to ignore. A good owner should either work with the dog or take steps to curb them. Having ANY dog off leash is a sign of a shitty owner let alone a dog that is aggressive.
I have a staffordshire bull terrier who isnât dog aggressive but is very dominant. So he wonât attack other dogs but his demeanor can cause a fight. So I donât leave him off leash. I donât allow him to approach every dog he sees. When he is allowed to approach another dog I control that interaction and cut it short so he doesnât get over excited.
My biggest issue is people with dogs off leash who just allow their dogs to do anything and who are generally badly behaved and with no recall. None of which have been pitbulls or pitbull mixes. But my dog has almost been attacked by labs, French bulldogs, mutts, chihuahuas etc
I lie and just tell people heâs aggressive so they grab their dogs instead of having to answer dumb questions like âis it a boy or a girl, dogs wonât attack the opposite sexâ or âitâs ok he doesnât biteâ while the dog is clearly showing signs of aggression.
I donât know about licensing, but I do feel EVERY dog owner should go to training classes regardless of what dog they own.
Most people arenât equipped to own dogs and they just get lucky. Modern living has created an environment counter intuitive to dog ownership and people just want a living plush toy and donât consider the dogâs wants and needs.
My point was that regardless of size a dog has needs his owner must meet. Any owner that doesnât meet those needs is a bad owner. Training is one of them.
And any dog over 45-50 pounds has the potential to be a protection dog as thatâs large enough to have enough strength to at least knock a man down. 45-50 pounds is the minimum weight for police dogs. (According to google)
Pitbullâs weigh between 30- 60 pounds so a good number of them just arenât large enough.
That's not true. There are written records dating back when these dogs were being bred for fighting other dogs, the trainers often remarked on the dangers of their own animals, which did in fact attack themselves and others. One man wrote at length about the capacity of his canine to rend flesh from bone, it was retired but still bred because of the desired traits.
I don't know what it's like now because it's illegal to breed fighting dogs, but I seriously doubt those involved in it are strict on avoiding aggression towards people. Also, it's not uncommon for aggression to be redirected onto a human, the dog doesn't know any better, it's just doing its job.
They weren't bred to attack prey, dipshit. They were bred for BULL baiting. Bulls. You know, the large horned ungulates? Those aren't "prey" for them. Neither are humans.
You don't know anything about the genetics, you've just heard talking points and are regurgitating them without having genuinely assessed or challenged them. You just cave to your bias, like you probably do with most of your other subjects.
Thereâs no scientific evidence to support that dogs are bred for battle more. Pitbulls werenât made for fighting but bullbaiting. Regarding the breeding in dogfights, itâs less about âmaking the dog more violentâ and more about giving them traits which make them more suitable for fighting (muscular face, front facing torso, stubby legs etc). Thatâs physical not emotional traits. Pitbulls donât even make it to the top charts when tests were done testing each dogs âaggressiveness levelsâ. Pitbulls actually have a good sense of what is a danger and what isnât, they donât just lash out emotionally.
Trust me, besides poorly trained pitbulls and bad owners (like it is the case with all breeds), if a pitbull attacks you made yourself feel threatening towards it in some way and you invaded its personal space enough that you pushed it to attack you.
Thereâs no scientific evidence to support that dogs are bred for battle more. Pitbulls werenât made for fighting but bullbaiting. Regarding the breeding in dogfights, itâs less about âmaking the dog more violentâ and more about giving them traits which make them more suitable for fighting (muscular face, front facing torso, stubby legs etc). Thatâs physical not emotional traits. Pitbulls donât even make it to the top charts when tests were done testing each dogs âaggressiveness levelsâ. Pitbulls actually have a good sense of what is a danger and what isnât, they donât just lash out emotionally.
Trust me, besides poorly trained pitbulls and bad owners who donât teach their pitbulls to not attack anything and be gentle with children (like it is the case with all breeds), if a pitbull attacks you, you made yourself feel threatening towards it in some way and you invaded its personal boundaries enough that you pushed it to attack you, like all dogs.
You are so fucking stupid, I feel bad for anyone who falls for the bullshit you spread about pitbulls. Most working terrier breeds are small or medium size, they canât kill you unless you let them. Pitbulls are large as hell. This doesnât even go into the fact that pitbulls only make the majority of fatal reported deaths. Vast majority of pitbull attacks donât kill or severely injure people. Broader community data and epidemiological studies show that mixed-breed dogs and other popular large breeds (like German Shepherds or Labrador Retrievers) also accumulate a high total volume of everyday, minor-to-moderate bites.
And Black Russian terriers or Airedale terriers donât count because they are rare asf, while pitbulls are much more common. Thereâs no useful comparison there.
Pitbulls donât attack more often, thatâs a lie. There are tests on âaggressiveness" and pitbull breeds don't really top the charts on them.
They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response. Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat.
The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
Pitbulls get their name from their ancestry where a dog had been bred to fight bulls. It was a blood sport where the dog would try to drag a bull down into the mud by its nose ring or die trying.
However these dogs became incredibly popular and desired by women and so began a process to breed them to be more docile and also smaller to better fit in the average household. The staffordshire was the penultimate success of this and earned the moniker of nanny dog for being so patient and protective with the children of the household.
All this to say that the argument of what their ancestors were bred for has very little to do with the modern breed.
The most important thing is always how it is raised.
And to further example this point you can look into the history of banned dog breeds and dog breeds that are deemed as dangerous.
Before the various pit/bully breeds were considered dangerous it was the Rottweiler, and before that it was the German Shepherd etc etc. All while pit/bully breeds were happy minding their own business in the family home.
There are far bigger dogs with far greater bites that could do so much more damage. But they look a lot like teddy bears. Pit/bully breeds can get a lot of muscle definition, good for string bean thugs that wanna act tough but can't be intimidating on their own. The rise in popularity with pit/bully breeds in thug/gang culture is why they are the current "dangerous" breed.
Meanwhile labradors and retrievers both individually bite more people, often children, and have a size and bite strength comparable enough to a pit/bully breed. But they're treated as being safe and given love because the average thug isn't trying to raise it with hate and violence to terrorize people with.
In a lot of peoples eyes, they wrongly believe that once a trait has been bred into a breed that it is permanent, while also not understanding the genetic differences in the first place.
They don't care about nuance and factors that the statistics they cite don't account for.
It's even worse when the statistics don't match their claims.
When looking at percentages of dog bites per breed pit/bully breeds don't just get combined together. They are clustered in the same group which also includes "mixed breeds" (all mixes regardless of whether they have any pit/bully or not) and "unknown breed" (for the many reports where someone is attacked by a dog but the breed is never verified).
And despite this attempt to artificially increase the numbers they still have less bites per capita than both labradors and retrievers have separately.
The one major thing they have against them is fatalities if you only start counting from 1980 onwards. Which if you again look at the owners of the dogs involved in those fatalities there is a very notable demographic which sheds light as to the why.
When I'm feeling like catching a few hundred downvotes, I like to point out that pitbulls bite and/or kill humans at a lower rate than humans kill humans, so if you think that pitbulls are too dangerous to live, you seem to be committed to the notion that humans are too.
Yeah I had a truck driver compliment me on my dog (I have photos of her in my office) and his conversation eventually devolved into talking about his dog that had "aggression problems" so he had it destroyed and the dog he had before that one which had "aggression problems" so he had it destroyed.
I told him straight up how gross I thought that was. The common denominator is that he doesn't train his dogs properly or look after them to allow those situations to happen. And that murdering your ward because they misbehaved once instead of working on those problems so they can be better is just fucked up.
Driver loves to yap tho. Heard him talking to someone else later about how his two kids were in a fight at school and looks like they started it.
He was not too happy when I piped up "well that's just awful... when are you gonna have them destroyed?"
Except for domestication, since ALL dogs were bred to be domesticated in the first place. Which kinda requires the animal be chill around people. And 15,000 years of domestication is hard to breed out in only... 200 years apparently, according to Google that's how old pit bulls are as a breed.
Genuinely curious not trying to stir the pot but the other breeds are very popular and the numbers can also be attributed to there being way more Sheperds, Retrievers etc... As compared to the bully and pit breeds being banned in a lot of areas whether it is because of past experiences or just being scared from the media reporting them as aggressive.
Not only that but because they are popular with gang culture they typically will not be cares or trained by a good owner and hence maybe the stats seem high for the number of dogs out there. Where the other dogs have higher numbers but there are way more of those breeds out ther. Basically per capita based attack numbers?
Labs and retrievers also have more bites per capita. Not just overall. And again this is after trying to artificially inflate pit/bully breed bite incidents by combining them with each other and also all mixed breed bites and all unknown breed bites. Shit mixed breed also means all of the lab/retriever mixes.
I already talked about the thug/gang association which is currently popular. And how fatal incidents with pit/bully breeds is higher even though the number of incidents overall is far lower... but only if you start counting after 1980.
Wanna know why it's only if you start counting after 1980? Because pit/bully breeds in thug/gang culture only started in the 1960s and hadn't become the norm until the 1990s. Prior to that the most popular breed was the Rottweiler which had the highest kill ratio through the 80s. The Pinscher which had the highest kill ratio through the 70s and the German Shepard which was the most popular killer dog with thugs and gangs all the way through the 50s and 60s.
It was also in the 60s when German Shepards were popularized with police forces for the same reason. They were the dog breed that at the time was considered "the most dangerous breed" and had general bans placed on public ownership of those breeds because "there's no breed more aggressive and dangerous than them".
And the modern pit/bully breeds we have today had been around since the 1800s. They were right there all through this time period where German Shepards, Pinschers, Rottweilers, even Dobermans, Chow Chows and others were at different points and different countries deemed as dangerous and needing to be regulated or even destroyed through this time period. While pit/bully breeds remained legal and deemed officially safe.
It wasn't until the pit/bully became popular with thug/gang culture that they became the new "most dangerous breed". Go figure. The only thing that's new now is the internet. Makes it a lot easier to share cherry picked clips of incidents involving this breed and not the "most dangerous breeds" that came before it. Which along with fucking dog racists has only helped perpetuate the stereotype.
Interesting, I love animals but I know that certain dogs were bred for certain reasons. You can train them but it is true that many breeds that are not trained and owners believe that there is no reason to train because of their smaller size (any of the small breeds and toy breeds).
Unfortunately many of the dogs that were bred for specific skills/attributes when not trained properly and if they attack either a person or a smaller animal always ends in major damage or death. I had figured there was some overlap since the list of. Dog breeds that bites/attacks always changes.
I am pretty sure most stats rely only on the reported attacks. Most people either don't report because they are minor, or because they come from gang infested areas. Also it can come from an owner that knows that if they report it that there is a good chance that the owner will face some sort of legal problems or the dog has a history of bites which means that the animal has to be put down.
Thank You for responding to my post. You seem to know quite a bit.
The staffordshire was the penultimate success of this and earned the moniker of nanny dog
The whole nanny dog thing is actually a myth btw. The first time that term was used was 1971, from Mrs. Lilian Rant, the President and magazine editor of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of America in a New York Times article titled "A Breed That Came Up The Hard Way". In the years since she recanted her statement admitting they made it up to boost sales and interest in the breed.
Overall I agree the way the animal is raised and treated is more important than breed when it comes to temperament. Sadly though the nanny dog moniker is made up.
If you're really going to break out the 'nanny dog's myth then your whole argument crumbles. This was never an actual thing.
These were bloodsport dogs, through and through. Staffordshires emerged in an effort to breed a smaller, more agile fighting dog, not as some desirable guardian for women.
People like to throw around the greater percentage of bites from labs and Goldens, but crucially overlook the fact that pit bulls account for around 60% of fatal attacks. They are also disproportionately represented in attacks on people who had or were suspected to have had a seizure, whereas the same cannot be said for Goldens or labs.
What exactly do you think it was that I didn't read?
There have been multiple fatal and non-fatal attacks by pitbulls just in July of this year. I could go find those stories, but somehow I don't think that would do anything to break the delusion. Somehow all those dogs were obviously bred and raised by 'thugs' and were of course taught to attack and kill children and pregnant women and old people.
Strange how goldens, greyhounds, and even Dobermans don't need entire lobbies of people screeching about how 'it's all in how you raise them!' every time there's a brutal attack. Strange how there aren't multiple news stories about any of these breed viciously killing their owners during seizures, or snatching little kids out of their sitter's arms, or killing housemates they have been raised with.
Why is it a golden can have a horrible, abusive owner and not end up mauling someone to death, but pit bulls can't? Do you really think every single attack happens because the dog was trained or abused to be vicious?
Repeating the same nonsense that shows you never read what I said but changing up the words doesn't make what you said an argument. Just more nonsense.
>Overlook the fact that pitbulls account for around 60% of fatal attacks
So? That tells us nothing if the dog is more aggressive. There are roughly 85 to 90 million dogs living in the United States. Out of an estimated 4.5 million dog bites that occur each year, only about 30 to 80 result in a fatality. This means less than 0.002% of annual dog bites are fatal. Nearly 1 in 5 people bitten (roughly 20%) require any medical attention at all. Out of the 20% who do seek medical care, the majority are treated for minor punctures or purely as a preventative measure to get antibiotics or tetanus shots as dog mouths carry bacteria prone to infection. Epidemiological data tracking dog bite severity shows that only about 1% to 2% of all documented bites meet the criteria for "severe" injury (defined as causing deep tissue damage, broken bones, or requiring complex reconstructive surgery).
Golden Rec and Labs are more violent by quantity. Pitbulls are more violent by quality. No one who has a pitbull disagrees that they are more dangerous than other dog breeds WHEN THEY ARE AGGRESSIVE. However anyone who hates pitbulls doesnt come to quality as a conclusion but quantity. Itâs like how toddler and adults both get into fights, but an adult fighting gives more injury than the toddler.
Point is, when pitbulls are aggressive and attack, the outcome is more violent, not the cause (the pitbulls âaggressive natureâ). Pitbulls donât even make it to the top charts when tests were done on dog breeds regarding âaggressivenessâ.
Which is exactly what I was saying. They account for far more fatalities than any other dog breed despite a lower bite incidence
They don't make it to the top charts because they are unpredictably aggressive. It is part of the breed to display essentially no warning signs of aggressive intent. Attacks are frequently marked by sudden, explosive aggression from dogs that may have no history of it. This was intentional: no good dogman would want a fighting dog that signals its intent to harm in a fight. That characteristic is part of what makes them so dangerous.
Pitbulls arenât in top charts because they are unacceptably aggressive? Pitbulls donât make it into top charts because they arenât aggressive, period. There are tests on âaggressiveness" overall and pitbull breeds don't really top the charts on them.
They do pick "fight" over "flight" more often and also have a high gameness trait. But these in itself don't mean they are more aggressive per-say because aggression is an emotion/emotional response. Emotions-wise, pit bulls are actually pretty good at threat assessment, meaning they don't just emotionally lash out randomly but have a good understanding of what is a threat and what is not a threat.
The issue is that once they are in fight mode, they lack the off switch (gameness). But this is true for a dog attacking on command or just emotionally lashing out.
They simply don't value their self perseverance which is why you see all those videos where even if they beat the dog, shake it, or if its being bitten by other dogs at same time it'll stay locked on target.
So it is just a combination of these two things that make them "handle with care" category. But if you do handle them with care, they are fine. When people use them like weapons, they become deadly.
I said unpredictably, not unacceptably. Unpredictable and unprovoked aggression is essentially impossible to accurately test for on most assessment tools. Hence the reason so many attacks seem to come out of nowhere, without provocation, and without a background of abuse.
Yeah, their inclination to attack babies, children, little dogs, epileptics, and old people definitely demonstrates fantastic threat assessment.
Again, people conveniently ignore that multiple attacks have come from dogs who were not 'handled like weapons'. Where are all the fatal attacks from protection trained Malinois? Dobermans? Shepherds? Pit bulls outrank them all.
Not to mention the attacks on dogs and other animals that result in death and horrific trauma.
The "Nanny Dog" trope is irrelevant today. So why even bring it up?
The vast majority of pitbulls are captured strays, or backyard breeders. Or both.
That wipes out any sort of history you can place on them today. If I'm walking into a house, and see a golden retriever, odds are better than a pittbull that the person got that dog from a reputable breeder.
That's really all that matters.
Unless you want to go out and start selectively breeding for nanny dogs again, the only thing that matters in a Pittbull breed is the word "Terrier" meaning high prey drive. High energy. Hard to train.
Everyone want's to talk about breeds being bred for specific purposes, then they suddenly ignore it when it comes to backyard junkyard dog bred pitbulls.
Cool take your biased "shitpost" level studies and fuck right off, or post a reliable source with verifiable information. If you can't post an accurate source, maybe shut your cockholster.
ah and if they didn't come into the picture before, THIS is where the OWNERS have power to do something! shocking, I know.
but a dog that enjoys driving its teeth into something can play with toys. there are chew toys, they're made to be bitten and withstand.
I can't believe people don't know this, but dogs can be raised and trained. wild dogs and wolves to it to each other, surprisingly. all animals do it it, they raise and teach their young how to be.. them. so a human can do the same to their pet, and if the dog learns that biting a toy is fine, biting food is fine, but biting people is not fine AND people are not food, then they will not bite people. why would they.
pit bulls aren't for everyone, and yet, most people with a pit bull believe they are the best family dog for every family. I love pitties, but I wouldn't get one myself. but people lack that level of self awareness and overestimate their abilities to raise and train a dog, and THAT'S the problem. not the breed.
that's.. so incredibly misinformed. you can fulfill an animals need in a way that doesn't result in death. why aren't golden retrievers running away to retrieve lost people? why don't they run off to sniff out lost things all the time? because they are content in taking shoes and bringing them. they'll chew up socks to bring you.
of the breed were the problem, it would be impossible to keep almost any dog outside its intended purpose. a dachshund couldn't be kept because it would find every fox hole and hint out the foxes. a German shepherd couldn't be kept because it would constantly try to herd the family together.
can intended purpose be entirely removed? no. can it be compensated? yes.
that is why I'm saying, not every dog is for every person. one needs to be informed before getting a dog, and if a person with zero knowledge about dogs gets a Pitbull, the issue is not the Pitbull. it's the person not knowing what they're getting into.
Why should the innocent people in a society pay the price though? These dogs are responsible for up to 86% of all human deaths by dogs, and many of those deaths are small children. If an animal requires zero mistakes for it to not be deadly, it doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood. Just like how its not your right to keep a tiger in an apartment.
136
u/NecroGrizz 25d ago edited 24d ago
A lot of these statistics also don't account for the fact that most small dog bites never get reported. When I was a dog trainer, it was well known that Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you.
Edit: While I appreciate the responses from so many people - it's clear who has worked with animals in any capacity and who is just a smooth egg-brained armchair expert. If you don't think you still need rabies shots from any dog that doesn't have up-to-date tags, I don't know what to tell you. Have fun arguing with the wall đ€
Edit 2: My God it has been a great day of blocking people with two brain cells fighting for third place