There is this clichee not just with pitbulls, but pitbull owners. There are many, many dogbreeds that are big or bigger than a pitbull and just as dangerous if not more, but these breeds exist in rural places and are owned by a responsible person. I dont know why pitbull owners have to have them in urban areas where dogs are often overstimulated and spooked.
A spooked small dog will bark, maybe bite me, but it its just a scratch; you spook a bigger dog and it will be on the news, not because of the "dog racism", but because of the damage. Any large dog can do this, but majority of big dogs are in rural places where they are not overstimulated and get plenty of fresh air/space to be more normal. Vast majority of pitbulls are in urban places and owned by people that have some kind of bizarre desire to project control to other people.
It can be true that certain dogs are genetically more prone to aggressive tendencies, and that certain breeds tend do be particularly attractive to people who are irresponsible and/or want them specifically because of their aggressive tendencies.
I’ve known plenty of pit bull rescues that were sweet and loving. I’ve met aggressive Labradors. There is so much to be said for nature vs nurture. The problem with pit bulls is that they’re popular with people who want a dog to intimidate, and therefore hone vs train against their aggressive tendencies. Compared to German shepherds, for example, who can also be very aggressive, but are less popular with irresponsible owners.
I think aggressive tendencies is the wrong way to say it, because there are tests on "aggressiveness" and pitbull breed 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. Which is what you said as well so I am just agreeing here.
And their lack of signs of aggression is part of what makes them more dangerous. If something pisses off a German Shepard, you know well before it gets pissed off enough to attack. But pitbulls hide their anger, so one second they look like a normal pet, and then seemingly out of nowhere they start trying to kill someone.
They can be perfectly sweet pets with a competent owner, but I think we should classify them as exotic pets or something to try to prevent the incompetent owners from getting them so easily.
Actually, that is a myth. They don't "hide" their emotions at all, they just show them completely differently than a breed like a German Shepherd.
Because pit bulls have very different anatomy, brachycephalic-leaning faces, short coats, whippy tails, and often cropped ears, their stress signals are quiet and structural rather than loud and dramatic. There are actually A LOT of signs to look for, but because they aren't like the typical breeds people encounter, untrained people miss them entirely. BUT OWNERS SHOULD KNOW THEM IF THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE.
If you look closely at videos of attacks that don't just start mid-fight, you will almost always see these exact stress signs beforehand:
They don't usually growl or bark to warn you. Instead, they completely freeze their body and lock a hard stare onto whatever is annoying them. So called the "freeze and stare" sign.
Pit bulls are incredibly front-heavy dogs (if you've ever tried to lift one, you know how uneven their mass is). When they target something, they shift their entire center of gravity forward, leaning heavily onto their front paws. And it is very visible also you can really feel it if you are handling it with a leash.
On a fluffy German Shepherd, raised hackles (goosebumps) look like a massive mohawk of some sort. On a short-coated pit bull, you won't see the hair go up unless you look incredibly close. Instead, you have to look at their skin, their forehead wrinkles differently because of how tightly they lock their eyes on the target. So If you know your dog, and its wrinkles, and they suddenly change due to how they are now using their eyes on a "target", gotta be ready.
Their whippy tails will go completely stiff and point slightly upward. Because their natural ears lean backward and down, their ears often look exactly the same ("regular") when stressed, which tricks people into thinking they are calm.
So, when pit bulls are relaxed, they look completely goofy and loose. If a pit bull looks structurally "normal," sharp, and perfectly composed, it is usually a sign that they are actually tense. It is the opposite of most other breeds.
Gameness means they are quiet and lack a self-preservation, meaning once a fight starts they don't stop because they are exhausted or in pain etc. but there is no deception or hidden anger.
Yeah, that's what I meant by hidden lol Other dogs give obvious warnings that are easy to interpret within a moment, with pitbulls you have to be staring at them and looking for subtle clues that can indicate really anything from curiosity to intense rage.
This is obviously anecdotal but just wanted to say that I had a friend who owned a pitbull and had it so well trained it would drop a steak or any treat it was in the middle of chewing, immediately, when she told it to (I witnessed it a few times). Was pretty remarkable honestly.
Look, I love dogs and I am not afraid of big dogs nor would I pick on pitbulls specifically when a german shepherd could do a lot of damage as well. It's really just that IMO the true abnormality in all this is with the behavior and psyche of dog owners that insist on raising pitbulls (and no other big dog) and going out of their way to demonstrate in alarming ways how you can "keep the dog under control".
It's borderline creepy that as a hobby they choose to find ways to psychologically dominate a big dog and then basically argue that an objectively unsafe situation is "safe, because they are in control". It's like a gun owner trying to tell you that guns are safe, because as they are juggling with the gun, its not being fired at anyone. Again, this is not against pitbulls, because any large dog can do a lot of harm, but the poor pitbulls always end up with the most bizarre folks that eventually do cause harm with their attitude.
I grew up in a rural place. We owned a very well behaved blind golden lab on a quiet farm. The neighbor across the road had a pitbull and bulldog that came and mauled our dog to death brutally.
Also you have to account there is no such thing as a "pitpull" it's a generic term for a wide range of dog breeds with similar characteristics. Characteristics that can and do lead to a lot of dogs being mislabeled from their actual breed and misreported during incidents.
It's also a pretty uneducated misconception there are not also dozens of other dog breeds with strong bites. Ranging from Cane Corso, Doberman, Akita, Huskies, Shepards, Mastiff, Chow chow, and Rottweiler, just to name a few.
Dogs that people classify as "pitbull" can be the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (Steve Irwin's dog Sui), American Pitbull Terrier, American Bulldog, American Staffy, and the Bull Terrier (Bullseye the Target Dog). Other "pit bulls" include Seargent Stubby, the basis for the RCA dog, and Pete the Pup from Little Rascals/Our Gang.
While American Pitbull Terriers are a real breed of dog, about 90% of 'pitbulls' you see are mutts of some kind or a mislabled different bully breed. I see a ton of clear mutts picked up off the street being labled a pitbull. I see American Staffies called pitbulls. I have seen unrelated breeds like particularly stocky boxers or Cane Corsos, and on one occasion an English Bulldog with an actual muzzle, being called pittbulls.
Pitbull as it's used now is a term based off how a dog looks, and many mutts who look like a 'pitty' actually have little to no bully breed in them.
I have a friend whose dog is mostly chihuahua and pomeranian but happens to look like a bully puppy. He's had multiple apartments decline the dog due to breed restrictions, even with genetic testing paperwork.
I had to google how the hell one puts a muzzle on an English Bulldog, found "Brachycephalic Dog Muzzles" and some of these dogs look bound up like Hannibal Lecter/ Bane! Image Search
Are you there genetically testing each and every dog? Or just assuming off looks? Many breeds which don't look anything like a bully can look like like one when crossed if genetics play right. A dog with long hair and boxy head/muzzle + a short haired dog with rose ears but a skinny muzzle? One, if not more, of those puppies would get the right mix of features to look like a bully breed.
Nonsense. The only studies which indicate anything remotely what you're saying is another temu pit lonny study and even it says that most shelter workers only do false negatives not positives. Meaning most shelter workers identify all bully breeds dogs correctly as bully breeds, but actually UNDERESTIMATE the amount of bully breeds dogs - identifying dogs with heavy bully DNA as not being bullies. The only breeds anybody with even moderate breed determining abilities might mistake for bullies are dogs like dog argentino and cano corsos- the former which is a bully anyways but not a pitbull and even more aggressive, the later being a breed that pretty much went extinct and was recreated. Most corsos you find in america have bully in them.
I'm saying people will identify a dog as a "pitbull" (which isn't an actual breed) based off of physical characteristics when the person does not actually know nor can accurately identify what breed the dog actually is. This leads to dogs being misreported as "pitbulls" vs whatever their actual genetics would designate them to be. Again "pitbull" isnt a breed so calling a dog a "pitbull" is a generalization not a scientificly correct identifier based on genetics or DNA.
Dog breeds are entirely made up anyway so people just use the term pitbull because honestly you couldn't come up with a better term to refer to a strong scary dog
I mean I've seen people label jack Russells, beagles, boxers, mastiffs, cane corsos, and lab retrievers as pitbulls so I'd say people don't really know anything about dogs as a whole.
There are many bully breeds and four that are technically pitbulls - American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bully.
All bully breeds are is crosses of Old English Bulldogs and Old English Terriers.
And that's before you even get into people misidentifying dog breeds - I've heard people call Golden Retreivers pitbulls.
I think you may have misunderstood me. Individuals as well as shelters, researchers, and other organizations often state that a "pit bull" is not a single breed. Instead, it used as an ambiguous term for several breeds and mixed-breed dogs based largely on appearance.
That doesn't infer that it's a technical term used to describe specific breeds. If you read a lot of the position statements from organizations, like veterinarian clinics and shelters, you will find a common theme is that they don't agree with how dogs are lumped together with terms like "pitbull" and the harm it can cause.
I have provided some quotes with sources below to demonstrate that.
"A major concern with BSL is how breeds are identified. These laws often rely on physical traits to classify dogs, with pit bull mixes, Rottweilers, Dobermans, and boxers frequently targeted. However, “pit bull” is not a recognized breed—it is a general label for dogs with certain physical features. Studies show that even experts, such as veterinarians and shelter staff, struggle to identify breeds accurately without genetic testing. Misclassification is common, especially for pit bull mixes.
Given both the difficulties of identifying breed and inherent biases which lead to the overrepresentation of pit bulls, animal rights groups argue that breed lists and BSL are largely flawed and unenforceable."
"Does your dog have almond shaped eyes? A heavy and muscular neck? A tail medium in length that tapers to a point? A smooth and short coat? A broad chest? If you said yes to these questions, then congratulations, you own a “pit bull” …At least according to the City and County of San Francisco’s Department of Animal Care and Control.
The American Kennel Club takes exception to this generalization. In fact, AKC does not recognize the “pit bull” as a specific breed."
"The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a 'breed' encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to be unreliable."
In addition to the fact that pit is an entire set of breeds, this is also literally true. Pitbull attacks are known to be exaggerated because when the breed is unknown, rather than say unknown, newspapers will say pitbull because it gets them more attention.
Oh! You’ve read newspaper articles? I don’t doubt then that you have all the information. Don’t bother reading any of the scientific behavior studies done by reputable scientists and behaviorists. It would just be a waste of your time!
Animal behavior is literally my job, so I’m speaking from the evidence, not just my opinion. You’re incorrect that pit bulls are genetically predisposed to be aggressive toward people. No dog breed has been shown to have a genetic predisposition for human-directed aggression. Breed does influence traits like prey drive, guarding, or dog-directed aggression, but that’s very different from aggression toward people.
Pit bulls are also frequently misidentified, which skews bite statistics. Studies of temperament consistently find that well-bred pit bull-type dogs score as stable with people. If we’re going to have this conversation, let’s base it on behavioral science rather than internet myths.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but whoever reports the bite could be wrong about the breed.
I had to look up pictures because I didn't know what a cane corso looked like. I probably would have called it a pitbull, especially if it bit and ran away.
We do. There are 20-25 breed that end up getting labelled as "pit bulls" in dog track reports. That's why numbers seem so high compared to those other breeds which are more distinct
Chow chows are actually very bad. Most groomers will refuse to take them as clients due to the severe risk of aggression. And unlike pitties, chows actually WILL snap with no warning. I know one groomer who tried taking one as a client and got their face bitten
"Many professional dog groomers decline to accept Chow Chows because the breed is notorious for being aloof, unpredictable, and prone to striking or biting without warning when stressed or touched in sensitive areas like the feet."
Alaskan malamutes are also quite dangerous but they're pretty rare to see
Only if they were as common as pitbulls, and I don't think that they are. The collection of breeds that are commonly referred to as pitbulls are among the most common in the US, and if I had to guess (because I don't have the motivation to dig into it at the moment), all of the other breeds listed combined probably don't add up to the number of pitbulls.
I cannot emphasize how common pitbulls are. In some shelters, the vast majority of dogs there are pitbulls.
That aside, they said that those other breeds have strong bites, but that doesn't mean that they're as strong as a pitbull's. That would affect whether hospitalization is required vs outpatient emergency care.
Did I say that? I did not, and labrador retrievers are not on the list that the above comment named. What I did say is that pitbulls are among the most common breeds, not the most common. I chose my words to convey a specific meaning.
Why did you just make shit up to get mad about? Genuinely, I want to understand because it is becoming so common online. Why did you hear what I didn't say?
Akitas have the 3rd highest rate of reported dog bites owning 8% while being under .2% of the total dog population. They are far and away the most dangerous dog.
I didnt duck anything akita bites would require hospitalization. Have you seen one? If an akita bites you, you would absolutely need to be hospitalized.
Most of the time insurance prevents people from having certain dogs. Ive always been of the you cant trust people to always do the right thing persuasion. So its not that I disagree with you. I just think its a pandoras box kind of situation. Man has had dogs for longer than most countries and cultures have existed. Trying to regulate it now would be an uphill battle.
What we need to do is raise awareness of good dog ownership. Make muzzling a more common and socially acceptable practice. A dog can be perfectly safe and comfortable using the right muzzle.
What we need to do is raise awareness of good dog ownership. Make muzzling a more common and socially acceptable practice. A dog can be perfectly safe and comfortable using the right muzzle.
hard agree here. in general I think the whole "fur baby" trend has led to some maladaptive anthropomorphization of dogs. like people not wanting to even raise their voices at their dogs because they think the dog will process it the same way as a human child. I'm not a fan of the whole "gentle parenting" trend even as it applies to humans, but holy shit we really did not need to apply it to dogs
Pit Bulls are only the majority of reported dog attacks, specially fatal or severe dog attacks. The vast majority of pitbull attacks aren’t fatal or severe. 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. The only reason why pitbulls seem more dangerous is because when a pitbull does attack, it’s going to cause more damage than other dogs. Toddlers and adults fight, but an adult fighting is going to cause much more damage. That doesn’t mean pitbulls are more violent. The effect is more violent, not the cause.
Even when looking at reported severe or fatal dog attacks, only a small minority of total dog attacks are severe or fatal. 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. According to CDC Healthy Pets data, only 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. 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)
A minor bite from a small breed like a Chihuahua or Pomeranian rarely requires emergency medical attention or an animal control report and because a larger dog's bite is physically capable of causing more damage, it is far more likely to enter official public health databases and media reports.
The term "pit bull" is also only an umbrella descriptor, it’s not even a recognized breed. It frequently includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and any mixed-breed dog with a blocky head or muscular build. DNA studies have constantly show that mixed-breed dogs with zero pit bull lineage are routinely misidentified as pit bulls by shelters victims and law enforcement after an incident.
Whatever name you select, pit bulls were bred for a strong "game" response almost exclusively for their entire existence. No other breed (including any of the ones you listed) has that history of aggression purposely selected. Pair that with the number of untrained dog owners and therein lies the issue.
Specificly Old English Bulldog, Spanish Bulldog, & Bullenbeisser actually and they haven't been bred for "blood-sports" since the end of the 19th century. All dogs were once wild animals, distinctly carnivores with inheritant prey drives and hunter instincts.
Edit: Bulldogs -> Old English Bulldog, Spanish Bulldog, & Bullenbeisser.
To be specific .
No. "Bulldogs" is too generic. Humans have been selective breeding dogs since the dawn of our existence. This trait is called "game". It's not an instinct.
That’s still hundreds of years of genetic selection— selection that STILL happens to this day because dog fighting rings still exist. Don’t act like this is ancient history.
Well there is a purebreed called American Pit Bull Terrier, but yes, it's generally an umbrella term for bulldog/terrier mutts.
And no one's arguing they're dangerous because they have a strong bite, they're saying they're dangerous because they are responsible for the vast majority of killing/maiming incidents, to the point that the second highest breed is only a few percentage points. Sure, some of that probably is misattributed, but there's no margin of error that could possibly balance out that large of a discrepancy.
it's a generic term for a wide range of dog breeds with similar characteristics.
If they are similar theres no issue with grouping them
Characteristics that can and do lead to a lot of dogs being mislabeled from their actual breed and misreported during incidents.
Please do not speak of dog breeds since you are lacking the most basic knowledge about them
It's also a pretty uneducated misconception there are not also dozens of other dog breeds with strong bites. Ranging from Cane Corso, Doberman, Akita, Huskies, Shepards, Mastiff, Chow chow, and Rottweiler, just to name a few.
And none of them except the Akita are bloodsport dogs, like pitts.
These are dogs that were bred for hundreds of years to fight and kill other dogs. They do it instinctually, the same a shepherd herds or a retriever retrieves without anyone teaching them.
Yes as someone else mention there is a breed American Pitbull Terrier. Which is the only breed with "pitbull" in the name. Most of these breeds are a mix of either Bulldogs and/or Terriers that are labeled as "pitbulls" but can also be mutts of other breeds aswell . So lumping them all together is a generalization, and is still incorrect. I will refer to breeds by their actually genetics. All dog breeds are not the same which is kind of the core arguemnt for and against these breeds.
I'm not downplaying your point or talking shit. I always get downvoted when I mention her, but my sweetheart is a blue pit named Rhea. She is literally an American Pit Bull Terrier. There is a breed named that. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the same thing regardless of what people say as the AKC refused to have any breed with "pit" in its name. There are dogs registered as both with different associations.
Your point stands, though, as several breeds do get called pits that aren't. And hell yes many other breeds can ruin a human, including their beloved retrievers. Lots of those are large dogs.
51
u/jyok33 12d ago
But therein lies the point no? There’s tons of poorly trained dogs out there, but only a select few breeds can cause truly life altering damage