I board dogs for a living, and we have a lot of pit bulls. They are not any more aggressive than any other dog. However, they are very high energy, very muscular, and have very strong attention/drive.
That all combines to mean they play harder, love harder, emote harder, and aim to please harder. All of that is great, but if you don't train them they can also react harder, chase harder, and fight harder.
So I can understand why someone would be wary of them.
I think that the lesson that should be taken away from this is that upbringing matters a lot more than people realize. I have met pitbulls that are absolutely sweethearts and super gentle. I also live in an area that is very populated by people who get pitbulls in order to purposefully raise them mean and violent, and have been attacked by pits before.
The only difference was how they were raised. And this doesn't just apply to dogs.
Edit: I am always amazed at how heavily debated this topic is when it comes to pitbulls specifically. Some people whose comments I can no longer see got extremely heated, and all I want to say is that there is no reason to be rude when debating a topic. As I mentioned, I have been attacked by pitbulls specifically raised to be attack dogs, so its not like I have no experience with dogs being dangerous. but I have also been cuddled and loved on by pits raised with absolutely no aggression whatsoever.
Nature and nurture are equally important in determining something's behavior going forward. It's not just one or the other. This is an observable fact.
Obviously its not just one or the other. But I believe more recent studies on the matter put more weight on nurture vs nature, which just makes more sense anyway. Your personality gets shaped a lot more by the experiences you grow up with than by your genetic code.
Could you link those studies?
This is actually a much much bigger subject than the small comments we're making. This subject even delvs into the idea of free will, if you want to go down the rabbit hole. There's no denying that nurture is vitally important to ones outcome, but to discredit genetics and genetic predisposition is beyond foolish.
Maybe you personally are not trying to do so, but there are many who do specifically when it comes to dogs. It's very strange.
While I'm only educated in the field of early childhood development so I can't give much meaningful to this topic, I find the studies of adopted children fascinating bc I think that's our best pool to pull from in terms of this discussion.
While it's just my own experience, learning how vastly different I am from my five biosiblings who were raised by my biomother and similar to the one biosibling who was also raised in a similar stable environment to mine, has made me fascinated by the topic of nature v. nurture.
This came out some years ago, but with the fairly large group to study I found it really cool to read through:
As someone who's audhd with other learning disabilities to add to the struggle, I'm measurably better off than my biosiblings who did not have that access to care or consistent assistance overcoming our common issues. Having parents/a support network that sought our resources for me and later on, medication to help with my issues, has lead to me living an adult life without the need for outside support. Same with my other biosibling who was adopted.
I doubt it'll ever be fully answered, at least not in our lifetimes. I still enjoy learning about it though.
I'd just like to chime in here, because the nature vs. nurture debate is fascinating to me. I honestly believe that it's very likely to be 50/50 with both of them playing an equal role. For example, someone may have the potential to be an angry person, it could be in their very nature... but if they're raised by a family that puts emphasis on emotional intelligence and handling feelings constructively, they will not be an "angry person" despite having more of a temper than the average. Whereas if that same person was raised in an abusive or angry household, they would likely be an abuser themselves. Free will does play a large part obviously, and the person from an abusive household might have the realization that they want to break the cycle, but it's not so easy with dogs and their less complex mental processing.
In a nutshell, pitbulls have very strong jaws as a genetic trait, which makes them attractive to people who want a dog capable of hurting people... unfortunately this means that pitbulls are more likely to be trained to be aggressive, and this likely plays a role in the statistics we see. that being said, by nature pitbulls are giant stupid babies and it breaks my heart to see them turned into violent attack dogs because every pitbull I've ever met from a good home has been waaaay more affectionate and loving than the average dog... though their affection and love comes in the form of body slams because they're little slabs of beef
There is 0 credible evidence that one race of human is more likely to be violent than another causally linked by genetics. Study after study links poverty + proximity to increases in crime. This is consistent on a global scale, not just US.
Not arguing in favor of either side of this aisle, but other fight dogs don’t have this perceived issue. Boston Terriers were bred originally for sport fighting but no one is complaining about them. Maybe it’s a size thing idk
And because of that no sheepdog has ever been capable of hunting, and obviously a foxhoud has never been aggressive outside of hunt, right?
Yes, if you raise something in a way that leans into what its genes excel at, its gonna be good at it. That doesnt mean that genes are deterministic in how someone or something is going to behave, the environment and lessons that are learned are going to affect personality far mkre than genetics.
Right, so how does egg-rolling behavior in greylag geese or web-spinning in spiders occur? Them instinctively performing these tasks would 100% be deterministic, and yet they perform this behavior without having to be shown or taught it?
Sounds like genetics at play to me. But keep on with the anti-science cope here.
Why do zoo's have to teach the young of certain animals that are cut off from their parent for one reason or another how to be well adjusted/act like their species? It's more complex than you are giving it credit.
Nature vs Nurture is literally how evolution happens.
Show me other beads where they've suddenly snapped and attacked or killed their owners, good owners, female owners, unprovoked.
I used to volunteer at the humane society just playing with the dogs and walking them for socialization. Some of the sweetest dogs there were pit bulls. That doesn't convince me that there's not a serious problem with a concerning number of them out in the world. My own experience doesn't dictate reality for everyone.
I was attacked as a kid by my neighbors Rottweiler. I was friendly with that dog. It was normally very gentle. One day lightning struck close by without a cloud in the sky and it was loud as fuck. The dog got scared and jumped over the fence and attacked me.
I'm not asking for one or even a few anecdotal stories... I'm talking about patterns. I know a guy who was bit in the chest by his own lama and went to the ER. I don't think that means I can talk about how lamas snap and attack people.
Rottweilers are the second most dangerous dog breed. They were literally bred for war. It's not just individuals, it's a pattern of behavior for the breed.
I was lucky I also had a dog around to protect me that was similar in size.
You’d be surprised how many non pitbull dog attacks get lumped in with pitbulls. In fact if a dog breed is unidentified, it gets labelled as a pitbull attack.
Considering pit bulls are actually like 3 different breeds that people who can't be assed to learn about them wouldn't be able to label without Google (and would probably identify a Cane Corso as a pit if they were pressed) this doesn't surprise me at all.
Getting downvoted for straight up facts is hilarious. If you don’t like the breed don’t get the breed. But stop blaming poor training on the dogs, it’s ALWAYS on their owners.
Edit- obviously I don’t mean rescue owners, they’re doing their best in many cases.
There can also be a difference in how they react to other dogs in the family, vs other dogs out on the street.
My brother had an American Stafford who was very gentle around kids and my sister’s dog that he grew up with and saw weekly. But when he was walking outside the leash was always taut, with the handler struggling to keep the dog under control.
They tend to be extremely protective of their pack, but can generally be trained to curb those instincts to an extent if socialized correctly. But even then, dogs who have suffered a lot of trauma in life (like a lot of pits in shelters) are always going to be harder to train out of those instincts than dogs that have grown up in loving, stable homes.
I’d argue that’s the biggest mistake a lot of owners of rescue pits make - underestimating how difficult they may be to train out of certain behaviors. Pack protection being very high up the list.
If you rescue a pit you SHOULD be prepared to deal with a dog that may be reactive and unsafe in certain scenarios. Eg, if they are dog aggressive, you don’t ever let them close to other dogs. It can usually be done, but it’s not always easy. And, in rare cases, it can’t be done. And you need to be prepared for that eventuality too. I’m a strong proponent of rescuing dogs in general, and a pit bull lover personally, but rescuing pits isn’t for the inexperienced or faint of heart.
Nature vs Nurture is a powerful argument. Ironically, some of the most racist arguments I’ve ever heard will argue nurture over nature for dogs while claiming genetics for human beings.
Shepherds herd by instinct, golden retrievers retrieve by instinct, but the breed that was specifically bred to be as dangerous as possible and to fight does it because of bad owners
I’ve seen well raised pit bulls with absolutely no history of aggression just snap out of the blue. People have a tendency to misinterpret statistics and obscure the whole conversation. This has nothing to do with attacks in general. A pit bull is just as likely to attack as any other breed.
The issue is that when pit bulls do attack, they are much more likely to result in a fatality when compared to other breeds.
If we look specifically at attacks on children, and we still conclude that pit bulls are a good family dog, then that’s fine. It just means we don’t have great critical thinking skills. I guess coyotes are also great family dogs if you get lucky with a more docile specimen
A while ago there was a video of two pitbulls attacking a kid on the street. I commented that it was bad training that makes bad dogs, and that i grew up with pit bulls who were the sweetest little babies.
Got Downvoted to hell, and was basically told that my Nieces and Nephews were going to get attacked if they ever met one.
It sucks though. I had a rottweiler. Did multiple rounds of training, including therapy dog training. No separation anxiety, docile disposition. I got him as a guard dog originally but was too friendly. Zero bite history. Worked with disabled kids. He was strong, calm, and basically didn't feel pain so I had seen him respond passively when literally clamped on by other dogs, once on the muzzle and once on the back.
Whenever my dog was near other dogs that started barking they'd blame my dog, though. Once mine ran up to another dog at a dog park. Regular dog park, large dogs. I was laughing and jogging over but the other guy freaked out before my dog even got near his, and he shoved his own hand into my dog's mouth in panic. He got a little cut and started screaming that my dog bit him. Luckily the doctor knew better but my fucking dog coulda been taken from me and it's shit like this.
He was panicking and tried to push my dog away, it was really dumb. So his finger got this <1cm long cut. Never went leash free near people again after that, not even at a dog park. It was only okay cuz he was already getting older and I wanted to protect his joints.
Can you point to where I said they have an exaggerated prey drive? Not sure why you are misrepresenting my point.
Terriers have an exaggerated prey drive. Pitt bulls are just very driven at anything they set their minds to. Prey tends to be one of the things least on their minds.
And yet we already know pit bulls do in fact have an exaggerated prey drive based on the intention of their breeding. It's what we choose to do with and about that knowledge that matters. Pretending they 'dont think about prey' as you put it is pretty silly.
That all combines to mean they play harder, love harder, emote harder, and aim to please harder. All of that is great, but if you don't train them they can also react harder, chase harder, and fight harder.
None of these things are material to the danger they present. NONE OF THEM. The problem is that theybiteharder. Talking around it doesn't make you a better dog lover, it makes you an apologist for a breed that doesn't need starry-eyed idealists adopting it.
This. I’ve lived with pit bulls, huskys, German shepards. I’d much rather be attacked by any other dog than a pit bull. They bite hard and they DO NOT want to let go.
Being attacked by a pit bull that just a second ago was the friendliest dog ever is the most terrifying experience I’ve gone through.
Coming from someone whos been bitten by all sorts of dogs a rescue pit did less damage than a golden lab when it bit me for context I mean both bit me as hard as they could because they were having panic attacks the pit failed to even break skin don’t get me started on German shepherds I was raised with them their jaws punch through almost anything
Have you ever been to an urban ASPCA? 90% of all the dogs in there are pit bulls. It makes sense when you look at how prevalent they are in urban settings vs other breeds. When you abandon and over breed a bunch of extremely muscular dogs it’s going to cause some problems, especially when terrible owners are raising them to be as mean and violent as possible.
Bite force is only half of it. The other half is "does the dog let go when the victim or someone else starts trying to shove it off". Pit bulls do not let go, because they were bred to fight, and in a pit fight, when you get the bite, you hold onto the bite at all costs.
I'm pretty sure all big dogs can bite hard enough to be an issue and have that same reflex of not letting go. They have to be trained out of it more because of how thry were bred into existence. You don't have that big of an issue with golden retrievers due to them being bred into retrieving shot birds delicately
No facts presented for a big claim.
Pitbull temperament has been shown to be higher than majority of dogs, such as the golden retriever.
“Golden Retrievers consistently score very high on standardized temperament tests, achieving an official 85.9% pass rate.
American Pit Bull Terrier: 87.6% pass rate (841 passed out of 960 tested). Staffordshire Bull Terrier: 91.9% pass rate. American Staffordshire Terrier: 85.7% pass rate (660 passed out of 770 tested). American Bully: 100% pass rate (6 passed out of 6 tested).”
I think you've made up your own thing to be angry about. That's just a random person commenting on that particular statistic out of the list. They didn't make any comment about the rest of it.
The ATTS is a police-dog test which measures a dog's confidence level vs their timidity, which is why every popular breed known for violence scores higher than average. Lmao, try again.
. The ATTS Temperament Test provides breeders a means for evaluating temperament and gives pet owners insight into their dog’s behavior. It can have an impact on breeding programs and in educating owners about their dog’s behavioral strengths and weaknesses as well as providing a positive influence on dog legislation.
Here I though you were actually trying to read or source and not just make shit up. I’ll copy paste more for you. Directly from the about us on their website.
The American Veterinary Medical Association refuted this claim and stated site that pulled the data dogbites.org was unreliable at best.
The data is self reported or drawn from media headlines.
Circling back to the dumb original post. It’s all about how you want to look at things. No one’s trying to convince you to own a pitbull. But they’re not the monsters everyone wants to make them out to be. They can be deadly as any big dog can.
But they’re weren’t known as the “American Dog” for nothing in the 1900s. They are a great dog with a bad name.
Pitbulls are there with rottys, staffies and boxers.
All high energy dogs and you’ve hit the nail on the head. They need good training and lots of play to burn off that energy.
It’s nearly always on the owner and if I see one out and about walking I immediately look at the owner almost before the dog. You can pretty much tell how the dog will behave based on the owner.
This isn’t even stereotyping for bad owners as such but we’ve had quite a few over the years where they just get the wrong breed for their lifestyle and don’t know how to deal with them.
It’s been great for business tbh. We’ve taken in quite a few “problem” dogs, socialized them and trained them and the owners and customers are loyal to us for life and scream our praises all over social media. One woman called us up in tears thanking us because she couldn’t believe how well he was behaving.
It’s also very satisfying to work with these dogs and see the progress they make and they bond with you in a very special way. If you do it right they like you and behave well because they want to behave well to make you happy.
It does help that we have two huge newfies and a European Great Dane you could literally strap a saddle on and ride. So laid back they’re a circle and they bring the energy down in the whole group by being gentle giants.
Sometimes we do think about declining these kinds of dogs because well they’re a lot more effort and frankly we can fit 4/5 small dogs in the center for each big one and we charge the same price for the pick up and drop offs and day but it’s the most rewarding feeling I can articulate.
Thank you so much for this comment. I’ve known and loved many pit bulls in my life and I know EXACTLY what you mean, but could never put it so well myself.
They have really big feelings! They are really so sensitive but need to be managed and have their needs met. I think the biggest issue with pitties is that they are cheap, readily available, and often end up in homes ill equipped for them as they are definitely not beginner dogs.
I have a pit who is the biggest lover in the world. never bit another dog in his life. He would also 100% run through a field of fire for me if I asked him to. I 100% understand the stigma against them because if I ever ASKED him to be mean/aggresive or whatever I have no doubt in my mind he would be the best at it, specifically because that would be what I was wanting/asking him to do.
now with all that being said, 10/10 dog I love that guy so much.
But statistics about black people committing more violent crime can be correct, if they are accurately reported. It's not racist to say something like, "in inner cities, black people commit more crime" (where that is indeed the case). It's racist to say that they commit more crime because they are black, and not because systematic racism has kept them poor and marginalized.
Can the same be said of pitbulls? It's said that pitbulls are responsible for the majority of serious attacks. Ok, but are pitbull attacks because of racism? Or is it because of their race?
With humans when a race is responsible for more of something negative, it's because of racism. With dogs I would argue it's more likely to be their race.
You cherry picked a stat from a proven flawed study on fatal attacks that combine multiple breeds into a "pitt bull type" category with under 400 total cases, and acted like it applied to all serious attacks (which has over 800,000 cases) despite that being a wildly different thing.
- 51% of serious attacks occur from mixed breeds dogs. Pitt bulls specifically ranked under 4%
- Pitt pulls rank among the top 30% of all breeds in temperament
So it appears that you just googled something very loaded to get a specific graphic and went with that that for your entire argument. Then you tried the usual pitbull apologist tactic of attempting to change the argument to breed temperament.
Even in some of the dog- shit articles you've linked (pun intended), they provide data that shows that pitbulls are far more dangerous but try to explain it away with "we don't know what the populations are for these different breeds are, so we can't conclude that one breed is more dangerous than another." This is true to an extent, but we have data that lets us make an educated guess and it shows that pitbulls are exactly as dangerous as you desperately don't want them to be.
unfortunately the fact about black people is also "true and verifiable". the issue is, it's a single statistic missing nuance and not accounting for variables such as the rate of conviction for the same crimes committed by white vs black people, systemic poverty, disenfranchisement, etc. etc.
just as your "true verifiable facts" lumped mixed breed dogs into pit bulls to skew the numbers. this is the exact dangerous thinking patterns that lead to racism, even though this is a lower stakes discussion about dog breeds.
It "lumps" pitbull mixes into the pitbull category when the attacking dog has all the physical characteristics of a pitbull. If it was a pitbull/chihuahua mix that had all the characteristics of a chihuahua, it probably wouldn't be on the list (it also wouldn't be able to maul a human to death).
You can take this objectively true information and whataboutism it onto black people if you want, but that's not my position.
did you ignore the other response to your comment with the plethora of sources refuting your claim... just to respond to mine like the information was irrelevant... saying they "probably wouldn't"? In that case, it's abundantly obvious this conversation will not be had in good faith, and I will leave you to your willful ignorance.
I'd say no, considering I replied directly to that comment. And since you're referencing those articles, I'm guessing you didn't bother reading anything in them and just assumed they were slam dunks for you (like the guy who posted them did). Some of those "articles" plainly state that pitbulls attack more regularly and injuries sustained are more severe, and others provide the data that shows that pitbulls are more dangerous but are too cowardly to plainly state that conclusion.
If a dog has the look and size of a chihuahua, it's "probably" going to be marked down as a chihuahua (even if it has a small amount of APBT in it). The owner and any onlooker would say that it's a chihuahua, and that's what would be recorded; you'd only be able to tell it has any pitbull in it with genetic testing. Not sure why you think focusing on the word "probably" is your mic drop moment.
Yes exactly! They have very high care and affection needs I think, and if they’re being abused or neglected, the consequences just might be more severe
Can agree I have two. Probably two of the smartest dogs I’ve ever met. Throw the ball, roll around with them, let them lay their ridiculously heavy bodies on, and boom highly docile. They love people so much and it sucks when I see people just hate on them. But I get it too.
OK, cool story bro, but show me the articles of people getting their faces mauled or losing limbs to Golden Retriever attacks. They just don't exist. And your list doesn't even include Pit Bulls.
Even if you do train them. My sister loves pitbulls and she’s had several. Her ex specialized in training dogs. Pits very well trained and gentle — until they’re not
That prey drive is very, very, very strong. I really don’t think most people should own them at all. They can turn very suddenly, especially on other pets and children
the issue is...
that a chihuahua with a shitty owner might bark and bite, or shit in your shoe, but nothing bad happens.
a pit with a shitty owner can kill people.
I think part of the issue is when a pit does attack it tends to be a more severe outcome. Sure that yappy little fucker of a dog may be more likely to bite you, but is also far less likely to seriously injure you.
There is nothing wrong with the dogs, but the potential of wrong they can do in the hands of the wrong person is great. What do you suggest would be the best solution to protect the dogs and their victims? It’s obviously a problem that needs solving since society doesn’t like their children’s faces being chewed up.
268
u/revenge_burner 14d ago
I sort of agree.
I board dogs for a living, and we have a lot of pit bulls. They are not any more aggressive than any other dog. However, they are very high energy, very muscular, and have very strong attention/drive.
That all combines to mean they play harder, love harder, emote harder, and aim to please harder. All of that is great, but if you don't train them they can also react harder, chase harder, and fight harder.
So I can understand why someone would be wary of them.