Why do people feel the need to say Pit bulls are the same as any other dog when it comes to violent attacks?

Question

First let me say I absolutely love dogs and spent 11 years training dogs with focus on protection and agility training. I love pit bulls and have worked with many pit bulls. I understand not ALL pit bulls are dangerous and a well bred, well raised pit bull can be a trusted loving member of a family. What I object to is people that say pit bulls are the same as any other dog when it comes to the chance of an attack on a human. This is absolutely, without any doubt, not true. The facts and numbers don't lie, I will paste a site below that confirms all that I will say. From 1979 to 1998 PUREBRED pit bulls accounted for 66 fatal attacks on humans, more then any other breed on the planet earth. Next were Rots with 39, German Shepherds with 17, Sib Husky with 15, and Malamutes with 12. Any other dogs listed had 1 or 2. Let me repeat that, purebred pit bulls had 66 FATAL attacks on humans, the most of any dog on the planet earth.

My frustration came with member APBT4good. I made the comment that if you were to randomly take 10 golden retrievers from random breeders and 10 pit bulls from random breeders and give each of them to a owner who had no idea how to raise a dog for 2 years then you had to chose which one you were force to leave your small child alone with for 8 hours which would you choose. Anyone who is honest would say the golden retriever but he said because he saw a golder retriever attack a child he would choose the pit bull. Guess how many fatal attacks purebred golden retrievers had from 1979 to 1998, you guessed it, 0, Zero, Zip, Zelch, None, Nadda. So when you compare 66 to 0, which would you choose? We all know that if in real life he had to make that decision he would not really choose the pit bull. It just bugs me how people feel the need to be misleading to try to prove their point.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

the reason they can say pure bred is because they catch the dog after the attack and a professional determines the breed. This is not b.s. numbers, you cant change the facts. These are the facts so dont change them to suit your argument

not at all trying to make you angry, I am just looking for some factual information that shows what I said is not correct. Like I said before, I absolutely understand that not all pit bulls are bad and that actually most of them are great, lovable, trusting dogs. My ONLY point is that they are NOT the same as every other breed as far as agression against humans goes. The numbers dont lie.

blessed 1, do you think that all breeds of dogs are exactly the same when it comes to potential agression twords humans? For instance, if you buy a pitbull and treat and raise it the exact same way as a dalmation, there would be absolutely no difference in their potential agression twords humans? If you think this, then why is are the number so obviouly lopsided? There just is no logical or intelligent way to justify that argument because of the overwhelming statistics.

sorry about spelling, I am in a hurry and got to go in a min

Jess, your question has absolutely nothing to do with my point or logic. My point is that pit bulls or pure bred "pit bull type breeds" if you prefer, have more potential to attack a human then other breeds of dogs. That is the whole point, that all the "pit bull type breeds" are more agressive towrds humans then other dogs.

wrenchman, please work on your reading and comprehension. This is not about blame or anything else you wrote about. If you want to ask questions about that, go post your own question. Also, it says pure bred on the chart, they are broken down to pure bred and inbred or something else. For you, last time I will say it, the whole point of my question is to determine if pitbulls are more prone to violence against humans then other breeds of dogs, or are all dogs exactly the same. This is not to place blame.

my most sincere apologies wrenchman, I was talking to rachel, I humbly apologize to you.

crazy dave, so you think that a pit bull and a golder retriever have the exact same potential for violence against a human. If this is the same then why are other things like energy level, prey drive, retrieval instincts, and about 1000 other traits different for every dog. Are you trying to say that when it comes to violence potential, oh, thats the exact same for every dog but the 1000 other genetic traits are different becuase ???

Thank you Debbie, you proved my point. You did it on accident but you helped my prove it. So you agree that not all dogs have the exact same potential for violence against humans. That is what your "numbers" prove. Could you please try posting the site again, I could not link to it, it said the site does not exist. I would like to look at exactly how they tested the dogs and how many and the settings and ect. I really like the test though, you are one of the first people to actually address the question asked. Thumbs up for you!!

the reason the "fatal attack" numbers are significant is because dogs dont kill people by bitting them once and leaving. Any dog larger then 30lbs had more then enough size and strength to kill an adult. The reason why these numbers are so scary is that it shows pit bulls dont just bite and leave, they bite and clamp on until the human is dead while other breeds just bite and leave. That is why you see a large number of deaths associted with pit bull attacks.

crazy dave, you are just confused and you killed your argument. In one sentence you say that pit bulls have the same chance to attack someone as any other dog but then at the bottom of the page your "brag" about how you read that cocker spaniels have the most bite causing injury. So are all dogs the same or not?? First you say yes, then you provide info that says no, when people get backwards like you just did it usually means they are being dishonest to support their answer and they just talked themselves in a corner like you did.

You did again crazy dave, I should just let you prove my point, you are doing a great job. Like you said ALMOST the same, NOT the same. So even you agree not all dogs have the exact same potential for agression. Thanks for the help.

Good point dave, LOL!

Is anyone able to get to debie's site, if so please leave a link. At this point I cant use it for my argument because I cant varify it. If you can find it, please leave a link.

looks like blessed1 agrees with me to, I went to her site and it even says "inherited traits" is a factor in a dogs attacks on a human. Since all dogs have difference inherited traits, all dogs have different levels of agression twords humans.

I agree with you 100% dave that rotts and pit bulls are not bad breeds at all. I just think that all dogs have a different level of potential violence twords humans. I think that the breed of a dog accounts for less then 1% of its potential to attack a human, I think all the other factors such as its owner are a much more important factor. My point is though, that no matter how small of a factor it is, I still believe it is a factor. Thanks for the feedback everyone, I really enjoyed it.

CRS, I understand what you are saying about the numbers, and understood it before I asked the question. My point with the statistics is that "pit bull type breeds" have more potential for violence then other breeds of dogs. It doesnt matter that they are not singling out a specific pit bull. I am unable to find a site on the accurate numbers of dogs out there, but I would bet that there are more labs out there then "pit bull type" dogs. The only accurate numbers are the numbers akc can and other registered clubs can put out. According to akc labs are number 1. The problem with using the akc is obvious though, pit bulls are not akc registered dogs so they have no count for them. To be honest, if I wanted to spend many hours going to all the different sites and doing all the math I could probally come up with some number, but I cant find a reputable site that has all the numbers. In addition, my point is not to prove that pit bull type breeds are the most likely human.

Answer 1

Mike
you are mis quoting the study. It clearly states "Pit bull type dogs" and compares this to other single breeds. It says nothing about pure bred APBT. Some of the dogs thrown into this category are APBT, Am Staffs, and Staffies and i think two or three more. so take the number of 66 and divide it by at LEAST 3, giving you 22 for each breed.
The next thing you have to take into account which they study clearly states is that there is no way to determine how many of each type of breed are in existence. knowing this number would allow you to determine an "attack per dog ratio which would allow you to better compare statistics. without knowing this statistic, you have no idea what you are comparing.
For example of breed X had 10 attacks and 100 dogs existed and breed Y had 20 attacks and 500 dogs, this study would lead you to believe that breed Y was worse, when in fact Breed X had a 10% attack rate compared to 4% of breed Y.
The next thing that the study says is that it got it's information from the media.
This site will show you a BUNCH of examples where the media is slighted (aren't they always anymore... they are looking for sensationalized stories... thats how they get ratings you know)
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm
and here is a little game called find the pit bull. I'll bet that each and every one of these dogs could "possibly" be counted in the statistic that you so eagerly called everyones attention to.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

I really hope that you care and that is the reason for your question. I'd hate to think that you are just wasting my time.

@Kim J
There are a LOT better ways than BSL to get things in control.
Leash laws for one.
Vicious dog laws for another.
What BSL does is works against good, law abiding citizens just like gun laws.... ban guns, and who has them? why the criminals... they would have them because they are by definition criminal.
Laws should work against bad owners, not my dog. there is absolutely NO reason that my dog should have to be muzzled in public. she has never once acted agressive toward any human or animal. she will actually head in the opposite direction of my girlfriends cat, but that is another story.
BACK to the BSL.... BSL is in place because rather than using resources to arrest and process bad owners, our governments think that it will just be easier to say "NO MORE PIT BULLS"... answer me this though. when all the pits are gone... what breeds will the bad guys pick up on next?

Edit:
@ Mike
Are you trying to talk about attacks against humans or deaths? you say you are talking about Pit Bull types being more likely to cause attacks, but the data that you presented is about human death rates, not dog attacks. Now I must ask, what about vicious small dog attacks that are easily fended off and never reported?
also
From the CDC Website:
A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm
They admit themselves that the study is of no use.
Also, here is a good read for you from the AVMA
http://www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf
According to them, 70 to 70% of all reported dog bite incidents are from intact males. Now THIS is a stat that people can work with. The most vicious dog out there are intact males.

Answer 2

Any dog, when provoked, can attack. It is their defense mechanism (fight or flight). Certain breeds that are considered "bully" breeds get the largest bad rap. Not every bite gets reported. I have been a trainer for several years and you can have dogs that have been specifically bred to fight or attack. Certain breeds cannot be trained to protect (such as Huskies), however, this doesn't mean they won't bite if scared, hurt, provoked (such as being hit), etc. I do own a Pit/Lab mix who is very docile, I also own a Rottweiler/Husky mix and a purebred Husky. Out of the three, I have only been bitten by my Husky. She was a rescue who had an imbedded collar and even though it has been 4 years since I got her, she is still neck-sensitive. I have worked with her on this and she has gotten better. My Pit/Lab mix has the characteristics of both breeds. She loves kids, she is very loyal and has never bitten anyone. I also had a purebred pit who never bit anyone, nor snapped, growled or lunged. I do believe that these animals can be re-trained IF they are worked with by someone who understands the breed and is experienced in behavior modification. It doesn't happen overnight and should not be done if the dog was bred to fight.

Answer 3

The issue is that dogs are poor generalizers - it's not that the dog is "sneaky, greedy" etc, but that they have no intrinsic sense of morality or "rightness" and so only think something is "bad" if it has bad consequences. If it has never had bad consequences except with a human in the room, then how on earth are they to know that the rules still apply with the human out of the room? You need to train in such a way that corrections and rewards occur when the dog does not think you are present - i.e. hiding around the corner. Read here https://tr.im/8mL4l

I personally owned a Labrador Retriever (read: chow hound) that could be left 6" from a hot dog in a sit-stay for half an hour and not touch it - the word was "mine" and it meant that you don't touch that, even if I am not in the room, even if whatever, you DO NOT touch that. You could leave a plate of food on the floor for hours and not only would she not touch it, she would also keep the other animals (dogs and cats) from touching it.

In all probability, these dogs studied were just not properly trained/proofed before the experiment. With "proofing" to set them up and catch them in the act to give

Answer 4

I completely respect the work you've done with dogs, pits included, but I too have worked with pits. I'm not responding to debate your sentiment; I feel strongly that a person's opinions and views should never be questioned. I will only share my experiences and my own views.

I didn't even like the breed when I rescued my first one. During my time with pits, I will say that I have had less problems with them, with regards to aggression, than I did with other breeds, even mutts.

My feelings towards the statistics are that with a higher concentration of pits, all stats tend to fall into line. More pits, means more attacks, means more panic, means more media coverage, etc.

For instance, if you have more criminals living in a given area, there will be a higher crime rate. I'm not saying that all pits are cuddly, warm and fuzzy, but when you have a breed that has been so overly populated, there's not a chance that there will NOT be a higher percentage of attacks.

Numbers don't lie, but proportions are often skewed.

Answer 5

First you are looking at the statistics all wrong. I believe you when you say pit bulls lead the list, but only because they are so strong and powerful. It's no surprise to me that the Rottweiler is 2nd or that the German Shepard is 3rd. I'm sure a Great Dane would rank much higher on the list if they were a more popular dog. All of the dogs you listed are big powerful dogs that can take on a human by themselves with no problem.

A well trained, well controlled dog is much less dangerous than a dog trained to fight. If you do some research though, you'll find even a pack of Chihuahuas can kill a human (this happened in Los Angeles a couple years ago).

Answer 6

(just deleted some un-needed info. I was kinda rambling and tired when I wrote this lol)

I was actually attacked by a Chow when I was younger, and my sister was attacked by a Scottie. Neither are on the top dangerous breed list, but they are the only dogs I know to of attacked someone I know.
In my opinion, when someone gets attacked by a pitbull, it automatically get media attention. Dog gets bit by a lab, no biggie, might of been an accident. Boy gets bit by a pit bull, ALRIGHT! Let get some coverage on this!!
Becuase of that the cases against them are more reported than any other.

This is a test done by ATTS . They do this by methodically exposing members of a breed to a series of confrontational situations, then measuring their reaction. The score is based on the percentage of dogs in a breed that passed the test

So the lower the number, the worse the dog did is how these scores go

Afghan: 72%
Australian Shepard: 79.2%
Beagle: 78.2%
Cairn Terrier: 70.7%
Chihuahua: 70.6%
Cocker Spaniel: 81.5%
German Shepherd: 82.8%
Golden Retriever: 83.6%
Labrador Retriever: 91.1%
Rottweiler: 82.3%
Toy Poodle: 80.9%
Yorkshire Terrier: 80.0%

Now, compare these to the pit bull breeds:
American Pit Bull Terrier: 83.4%
American Staffordshire Terrier: 83.3%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier: 93.2%
( taken from http://www.midwestrescueabull.org/myths.html )

As you said, numbers don't lie. Look at more sites before you come up to a conclusion. And I'm sorry if I seem kinda mean, I am strongly for "Hate the Deed, Not the Breed" XD


[EDIT] Fixed the link!!

[edit again lol] Ah yes. I failed to see that the tests were conducted on leashs. Sorry :)

Answer 7

Filia brasilerio my friend. There are breeders still trying to less the aggressive tendencies with these beautiful animals. Filas are NOT bad animals there actually great. APBT is the only breed that can be called a pit bull. No dog has locking jaws, no dog is born aggressive. The APBT and AM.Staff are equal at being the 17th strongest dog, with the 4th strongest bite force. Your confused terribly no doubt about it. Actually i own dogo argentinos American bulldogs and many other breeds ( My friend breeds bully breeds and mastiff breeds ) and when i walk them EVERYBODY says there "pit bulls" And tries to avoid them. The fact remains Pit bull is not a breed. APBT is one of the best dogs for kids.
APBT get 22 - 65 pounds and 17 - 23 inches anything heavier then 70 pounds is a mix or simply NOT and apbt. Mostly anything over 25 inches is not an apbt. I say a few pounds heavier and few inches taller because i know that some are a bit bigger and some are a bit smaller.
How can you mistake a pure bred 140 pound American bulldog for an APBT, beyond me for sure. I also own a 60 pound 19 inch male American Pit Bull Terrier American Staffordshire Terrier Mix thats deaf his name is Joe. He VERY smart and friendly.
Here do some studying yourself to help your lack of knowledge.
Ohhh BTW, when dog fighting was legal and even when people still illegally dog fight, the owners stand in the fighting pit with there dogs that are fighting, hows that for an aggressive dog?


http://youtube.com/watch?v=782DGq9IDiM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FyWu-INDH9Q




Breed Name
AFGHAN HOUND 72.0%
AIREDALE TERRIER 76.5%
AKBASH DOG 85.7%
AKITA 73.6%
AMERICANbulldog 83.1%
AMERICAN ESKIMO 83.3%
APBT 84.1%
Amm.Staff 83.9%
BOXER 84.5%
BULLDOG 68.8%
BULLMASTIFF 76.4%
COLLIE 79.2%
DOGO ARGENTINO 90.0%
COCKER SPANIEL 81.7%
DOBERMAN 76.8%
GERMANSHEPHERD 83.3%
GOLDEN RETRIEVER 83.8%
GREAT DANE 78.9%
ROTTWEILER 82.7%

There are MANY more breeds tested, heres the site http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

So YOU have the lack or education.

Answer 8

Back in the day, bulldogs were also considered ferocious killers too.

I do see your point. Pit bulls as a breed originated as fighting dogs with high aggression levels and it may be a matter of selective breeding over time (like the bulldog) to moderate that aggression. Consider also the mode and method of attack between pits and the other breeds you mentioned as well though. Most dogs will bite and immediately release, having made their point. Pits hang on. That's what they were bred for.

Answer 9

I feel that pit bulls can be a dangerous breed because they have the combination of body strength, extremely powerful jaws, and sometimes aggression. That last one is the scary one. However most pit bulls are not "overly- aggressive" or anymore aggressive than any other breed. I've seen many other toy breeds with a huge aggression problem...the only difference is they don't have the power to make headlines. Bottom line is the breeds involved in "violent attacks" are large, powerful dogs who need strong leadership & control. But their size doesn't make them dangerouse, their owner does.

Answer 10

The facts unfortunately cannot always be trusted. I have seen a number of so called 'professionals' misidentify bully breeds. A short time ago, a 130 pound pit bull attacked a woman and her child. APBTs, if purebred, rarely make it past 80 lbs, and even that is rare. This dog was likely not a pit bull...perhaps a mix at best. I did not see 'purebred' anywhere on that link, and these were 'reported' attacks. In addition, 'Pit Bull' describes 3+ breeds of dog....AmStaffs, Staffies, and APBTs. Obviously their bite statistics will be higher because, unlike every other breed, these attacks are not counted singly.

I think it's common sense to understand that a large breed of dog is going to do more damage than a smaller breed. The majority of the attacks listed were executed by unrestrained animals roaming off leash, followed closely be tethered dogs. Any responsible owner is aware of the psychological strain that tethering a dog causes, and therefore does not tether. And, any responsible owner keeps their dogs on lead. So, most, if not all, of these unprovoked attacks can be traced back to irresponsible ownership.

But let's just blame the dogs, right? I mean, that is much much easier than actually identifying and correcting the problem right?? I think your view of who the real villians are is skewed.


EDIT: Forgive me for misinterpreting the question. Pit Bulls are some of the only dogs in history to be culled...and mercilessly at that....to avoid the emergence of human agression. Even those bred for pit fighting were culled this way. After all, the handlers of the dogs would have to separate them occasionally and looked to do so without being bitten. In regard to the fatalities, Pit Bulls are powerful dogs with muscular jaws. It is logical that these dogs will do more damage than their less muscular counterparts. The fact that these muscular powerful dogs have more potential to cause fatal injury is obvious. But they are, in essence, like any other dog. They passed temperment tests at over 80%...higher that some of those that we consider 'family dogs', and dispite popular belief, they do not hold the highest bite record.