It is true that pit bulls make up a hugely disproportionate number of reported dog attacks, it's also true that they are especially dangerous and have caused the most deaths by dog bite.
What many of these statistics fail to account for are environmental factors (pit bulls tend to be the most abused and most regularly abandoned dogs because of dog fighting and also because they are just a handful to properly train and care for.), it is also very difficult to gather accurate data on breed specific attacks/aggression because while pit bulls are the highest reported in most dog bite statistics, they are also not a breed as much as a group of breeds that includes:
The American Pit Bull Terrier
The American Staffordshire Terrier
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and
The American Bully
A study found that dogs classified as Pit Bulls only had 43.5% DNA from Pit Bull-type ancestry.
The study, carried out in two shelters in California and Arizona, also found that 62% of dogs labeled as Pit Bulls had less than a 50% DNA concentration from Pit Bull-type ancestry, Pit Bull facts and statistics show.
Identifying the right breed of dog in attacks and death is incredibly difficult. This is why the CDC stopped collecting breed-specific data in dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in 1998.
The fact that there’s no official data to go by makes it even harder to separate myths from facts regarding Pit Bull attacks in the US.
Okay cool, so pits might make headlines more because of their strength and ability to inflict fatal wounds easier than other breeds but that goes for most large dogs.
German Shepherds had a similar stigma back when Americans were still xenophobic toward German immigrants and there were similar attitudes around that breed in the mid twentieth century. Prior to WWII Pit Bulls were a working class icon and were as much or more known for their reputation as great working dogs and loyal and loving family dogs as fighting dogs or vicious guard dogs.
Pit Bulls were bred for a wide variety of reasons and selected for many different traits but like most dogs they were foremost bread for physical traits and secondly for their temperament toward humans.
So what happened?
Racism it's always racism.
No new owner may settle in the area so long as they possess such a dog. Critics argue that these bans are not based on sound scientific or statistical evidence—that pit bulls pose no greater risk than any other breed of dog. Advocates of these laws urge that the bans are crucial to protect the public health and safety from dangerous dogs. Yet, perhaps these concerns have less to do with dogs and more to do with the individuals who own them. Breed-specific legislation may be being used as a new form of redlining to keep minorities out of majority-white neighborhoods.
“We don’t want those people here,” a city council member said of the bans. Strong cultural ties exist between pit bull dogs and the Black community. The same is true of the Latino community. Research undertaken here to investigate this claim suggests that people of color are perceived to be the most likely owner of this breed of dog. While at the present time, actual ownership data is not available, if true ownership resembles the perceived distribution measured here, such a finding may form the basis for a legal claim. Under new law, breed-specific legislation could be challenged under the Fair Housing Act if it can be shown that these laws are disproportionately excluding minority groups.
-The Black Man's Dog: The Social Context of Breed Specific Legislation, by Ann Linder
https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/32171-25-1-third-articlepdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107223/
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf
As I already addressed they were bred for a variety of reasons and even the "fighting dog" trope is a misrepresentation of a behavioral trait - gameness - that isn't actually inherently aggression. In fact, even fighting dogs that showed aggression toward their handlers were almost always put down.
Dogs aren't bred to fight they're abused and conditioned into being aggressive toward other specific animals.
Gameness plus powerful jaw equals bad times. The arguments pit owners make are the same as open carry people - it's just the owner, it's environmental, etc. They're dangerous animals and should be regulated as such.
Most dogs greater than 40 lbs have the capacity to severely injure adults and children despite not having the jaw strength of Pitbulls.
I've seen a lot of housing providers put weight restrictions on dogs. That policy seems like a reasonable and less biased compromise.
i don't really feel like there is a real difference in the differentiation you made there
if that is a breedable trait it seems fair to me to say they have been bred for fighting (not exclusively)
There are plenty of factors that can contribute to this though. A trait that makes them more resilient in the ring doesn't necessarily mean they are more naturally aggressive.
If we are to apply the same standards of materialism to all beings (which, to an extent, I believe we should) we should acknowledge that it is easier to manipulate someone into violence than it is to select for physical genetic traits. Therefore, it follows that the aggression is trained, and the capability to inflict damage is bred.
Most mammals tend to have complex social bonds especially pack animals like the ancestors of domestic dogs. Selective breeding has only occurred for a tiny fraction of the evolution of the bond between humans and canines.
i never said it did. i was just responding to you saying they aren't bred to fight
if we split it into propensity for violence & capacity to inflict violence then there is no doubt pits have a lot more of the latter than most dogs and the former is basically unprovable either way
doesn't mean you can't do both though, people have definitely bred dogs with the intention of making them better pit fighters
Idk probably shouldn't have got into this cause i don't have strong feelings either way about dangerous dog bans
Okay so what you should take away from this is that pit bulls are used as a dog whistle and a propaganda tool and they're no more dangerous than huskies or german shepherds or even standard poodles (who are actually severely prone to random aggression because of inbreeding and selecting purely for aesthetics over all else).
https://canineperspectivechicago.com/poodle-training-profile/
The whole point of this post is that pit bull hysteria is rooted in racism and classism.
telling someone you're talking to what they need to takeaway from a conversation is great craic. going to start doing that. I will stick with the opinion i have formed in my own brain for now though
im sure there are cultural and racist reasons behind the way certain dogs are targeted as dangerous but i also think people are just scared of the high capacity for violence of certain breeds, and that's understandable
other dog breeds not thought of as dangerous definitely have high levels of aggression but if they're not as physically capable at inflicting violence it's not as worrisome
maybe it should be tho
But the point of the post was that there is probably more behind the scenes racism/classism regarding opinions on what dogs are considered violent than physical attributes. I don't think the OP was trying to start a struggle session about exactly which dogs are more capable of doing violence or the severity of the damage they could do, just that there is a fair amount of "panic" voiced about one thing openly that might be more about something else.
How do you square this with your argument that there is no good data available? This seems to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're making an assertion (with no data) while dismissing all of the best data that's actually available for being imperfect.
~~My understanding is that pits have a different style of biting. They clamp down and don't let go for minutes, while thrashing from side to side to rip flesh. It's inherited from their history as bull-baiting dogs. This makes them more dangerous than dogs of even a similar size and strength.~~
Dangerousness and aggressiveness are not the same thing. A rubber band gun is more likely to accidentally discharge than a firearm, but that doesn't make it more dangerous. It doesn't mean you can't love your guns or your dogs, just respect their danger.
When dogs attack something to kill it, they all do this. Every breed.
this is just how dogs kill prey - they clamp on and thrash to try and break their necks. every single breed does this, even during play, except where the behavior has been trained out. hell, you can get most dogs to do this by just playing tug-of-war with them, with a rope.
pits are just not unique. any well-founded fears people have of them apply to dogs as a whole. there's no excuse for wholesale slaughter.
It’s a trait that comes from the terrier side, and is most often naturally directed towards prey. If your thing is catching rodents with your face, you want to be able to take some bites to the face without immediately giving up going home. Even with selective breeding for dog-dog aggression, most dogs bred for fighting aren’t willing to fight another dog to the death and are culled or sold after being tested.
I have a dog that was seized from a huge fighting ring, is pretty scarred up, and is the undisputed wrestling champion whenever she plays with her dog friends, but her bloodlust is mostly reserved for the neighborhood rats these days.