You're viewing a single thread.
Ofcourse you can breed aggression, its so absurd to claim that you cant.
We have bite statistics. Every year, pit bull and pit mixes far outnumber every other breed for human bite attacks, consistently, and always make up far more than half (to the tune of ~70%) of all total bites, by breed. Every single year.
Yet people ignore statistics and are eager to jump on the pibble defense train. “My little angel would never bite anyone!”
Maybe. But numbers don’t lie. Just stop breeding them. It’s cruel to people, and it’s cruel to the dogs themselves, that the breed continues to be perpetuated. Breed-specific behaviors are visceral and strong, whether you have a retriever, a pointer, a herder, or a throat mangler. The breed behavior can be invoked at any time, relatively easily.
It's not that pits are more likely to bite, it's that their bite is way more damaging. If a retriever (bred for a "soft mouth") bites me, I am way less likely to need medical attention than if a pit bites me. Even biting at lower rates than many other breeds, pits come out on top of medical reports because each bite is more damaging.
Maybe. But numbers don’t lie
This is only said by people who've never actually taken a class about statistics.
Numbers may not lie, but they also don't make assertions. People suck at interpreting data and that fact is constantly utilized to mislead people.
I'm not saying this to defend pitbulls, just that bite statistics don't really tell us anything about innate aggression in dog breeds. Just like FBI statistics don't tell us about innate criminality in ethnicity.
Those bite statistics don't make any attempt to rule out misleading variables. It could be that pitt bull bites are reported more often because of the extent of harm they cause. It could be that people who gravitate towards breeds who are thought to be more aggressive are wanting and are training for aggression.
Statistics is hard, and can generally be used to shape opinions on just about anything.
This. It's not neccessarily the breed itself. Look at who is likely to own the breed and what they are likely to do with it.
Yeah that's the point, chihuahuas are assholes too with wrong owners but due its size its not gonna maul children.
I rather give an dumb toddler a spoon than a tec9
Lies, damn lies, and statistics
A friend of my wife and I got a pit bull a couple months ago. She was going on and on about how sweet he is and how he would never hurt anyone. Last week, it mauled her roommate. Nearly took his hand off while he was changing into his work clothes. His career is likely over and she's still defending the dog.
I think that dog is legally required to be put down no?
I have no idea. I know the city animal control has it now. She is trying to get him released, though.
I guess it depends on where you live yeah...
Lets hope it doesnt get to hurt anyone again.
And even with this personal evidence, you get defenders downvoting the story - not because it doesn't add to the discussion, buy because it doesn't suit their narrative.
I hope the roommate is able to find a good surgeon and get the help he needs, that sounds terrible if it could call for a career change.
The word you're looking for is anecdote
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
And even with this personal evidence, you get defenders downvoting the story
I think you and I have different ideas about what the word "evidence" means. A story told by a random user about something that happened to their friend's roommate is not really something I consider or weigh heavily when evaluating things. There could be relevant details omitted from the story, or it could be invented whole cloth, in any case, it isn't statistically significant.
So you've never heard the term "anecdotal evidence" then. I said it adds to the discussion and doesn't deserve downvoting by pitbull white knights, not that it needs to be booked into evidence for the supreme court case to decide the fate of all pit bulls.
So you've never heard the term "anecdotal evidence" then.
As I recall, it is generally brought up to point out how worthless it is in any particular debate.
But, go on....
Yeah Lemmy would be a great place if nobody ever discussed a personal story about how they were affected by a topic being discussed.
Your comment ignores all context of the thread, congrats.
Discussion is fine. Trying to pretend it proves your point is not.
-
Yes, I have in fact heard that term, which is exactly why I know that anecdotal evidence is not valid.
-
What does invalid evidence add to the discussion, exactly?
-
There are people in this thread who are arguing for legislation restricting ownership of pitbulls. We are in the court of public opinion, which may be less formal than the supreme court, but still has the capacity to influence public policy. So it seems reasonable to apply a very basic standard of evidence, above that of stuff that random people claim happen to their friend's roommate.
-
even with this personal evidence, you get defenders downvoting the story - not because it doesn't add to the discussion, buy because it doesn't suit their narrative.
Not really commenting on the claims made in this argument, but this is anecdotal evidence. Meaning that someone who claims all pitbulls are sweet and docile because of their personal experience is just as valid of an argument as someone saying all pitbulls are bad because of their personal experience.
I don't really care about pitbulls one way or the other, but I find it worrying that a lot of the times the debates against the breed follow similar argument structures to those utilized by racist pulling up FBI crime stats about black people.
Personal evidence is anecdotal, I never said it wasn't? There is nothing wrong with someone sharing a personal story to add to the discussion was my point.. Which I thought I made clearly.
Ah yes, 'being cautious about dog breds bred over a hundred years of more for violent traits is much the same argument as being cautious about black people' false equivalence again.
Personal evidence is anecdotal, I never said it wasn't? There is nothing wrong with someone sharing a personal story to add to the discussion was my point.. Which I thought I made clearly.
Right, but you were dismaying people who refute your anecdotes "because it doesn't fit their narrative", which is a perfectly valid thing to do with anecdotal evidence, as it is itself an attempt to build a narrative.
being cautious about dog breds bred over a hundred years of more for violent traits is much the same argument as being cautious about black people*' false equivalence again.
Racist would often say the similar things about black people in America. Slavery lasted well over a hundred years and slave owners would often have slaves who were brought up to be prize fighters.
No, I wasn't. I was pointing out how pathetic it is that people downvote comments that they don't like because it doesn't fit their narrative - downvotes are for comments that don't add to the discussion, and personal stories are absolutely valid.
Am I writing in a coded language that's hard to decipher?
downvotes are for comments that don't add to the discussion, and personal stories are absolutely valid.
Lol, what are you the mayor of reddit? You don't get to decide how people utilize this platform.
This is Lemmy, not Reddit. Lol are you lost?
Lol, my point was that it was a reddit ass comment. Nobody here cares about the "rules" about up votes or down votes.
There's always a tool that wants to be faux intelligent and inject a racist flavor into every discussion.....
There's always people trying to defend the use of racist dog whistles.
This is not a thread of statisticians. This is a thread of people sharing experiences about dogs. Expect people stories aka "anecdotal".
My contributions are not anecdotal
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
Then also expect people to dismiss that anecdotal evidence as irrelevant
We do have bite statistics, and the people most qualified to interpret them disagree with you
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf
If you can breed aggression, you can breed against aggression. Which means you can breed pit bulls to be less aggressive.
I understand the bite statistics but you have to keep in mind how those are reported too.
No one is reporting their neighbor's chihuahua taking a bite at their boot. Bites from smaller breeds mostly go unreported.
It does give a point as to why pit bulls and other large breeds are dangerous though. Whether they are more common or not, they certainly are far, far more serious when it happens.
Responsible ownership has always been an issue with pitbulls, as irresponsible people tend to adopt and breed them.
This massively differs per country. Pitbull bites are generally nastier than other bites so they're overreported. It's also partially the public image of pitbulls being nasty dogs that gets them reported more often.
Historically the "most dangerous breed" has changed quite a bit. For a while Great Danes were the worst, then it was Dogo Argentinis, Malinois, German Shepherd, Akitas, Labradors, Jack Russells, etc...
In France for example pitbulls only rank 12th for most bite incidents.
Research on it has been mixed, with studies focusing on nature finding that the breed matters surprisingly little when it comes to aggression. It seems more likely that there's a certain group of owners that handle their dogs irresponsibly, which tend to popularize specific breeds. This seems more likely because places that banned 'dangerous' breeds don't see a decrease in bite attacks; the owners of the dangerous breeds mostly get new dogs, which then just bite people again.
This is because pitbulls are a restricted breed and France. So either people don't have them, or they get the vet to say it's some other breed (more often than not)
Point being that different dog breeds are listed at the top of being most dangerous in France.
You're still allowed to own a pitbull in France, but you do require a training and need to muzzle them in public (but not at home).
Yes, when pitbull ownership is restricted, pitbulls fall from the number one spot for most dangerous
Obviously. Point being that these owners take different dogs which then rise in the ranking to take the pitbulls place.
Yes, and to the original point you used french rankings to attempt to make, the ranking of pitbulls is not because they are treated better or just culturally aren't regarded as dangerous, it is because they are restricted legally.
No, the point I was making regarding what's culturally considered dangerous didn't relate to France directly, that was about the US which went through various phases of panic regarding certain dog breeds. I only brought up France because there different dog breeds have risen to the top of the bite attack statistics. The restriction on pitbulls just let other dog breeds rise to the top. The breed matters less than who owns them. In France, the more irresponsible dog owners gravitate to German Shepherds and Labradors whereas in the US it's pitbulls.
I don't mind the French ban on pitbulls, because their attacks can be significantly more damaging than those of other breeds. But it won't really reduce the number of incidents.
Do you have evidence that other breed attack rates have risen, as opposed to the attacks by staffy/bully/pit breeds simply not occuring? I wasn't able to find this evidence in eurostat.
Best Friends Animal Society, “Protecting the Public while Preserving Responsible Owners’ Property Rights,” bestfriends.org (accessed July 6, 2021)
This source shows that pitbull bans did nothing to reduce bite attacks in Spain, showing the same numbers 5 years before and after the ban.
They also state this:
Best Friends Animal Society explains three mitigating factors in dog attacks: 97% of the owners had not sterilized the dogs; 84% of the owners had abused or neglected their dogs; and 78% were using the dogs as guard dogs or breeding dogs instead of keeping the dogs as pets.
Then there's this one:
ASPCA, “Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation,” aspca.org (accessed July 6, 2021)
Council Bluff, Iowa, banned pitbulls, and saw Boxer and Labrador Retriever bites rise as those were the breeds people switched to.
Same source shows that it Winnipeg, Canada, instead saw Rottweiler bite attacks increase.
And from this source:
Emily Anthes, “But How Much Does Breed Shape a Dog’s Health and Behavior?,” nytimes.com, Feb. 9, 2025
Rather than breed traits, the ASPCA notes chaining and tethering dogs outside, lack of obedience training, and selective breeding for protection or fighting are risk factors for dog attacks.
How many American Pitbulls are there in France?
Very few of course. Other dog breeds are known to bite a lot in France. You can still own a pitbull but you require training and you need to muzzle them in public.
Still, there are approximately 35k pitbulls in France. Few compared to the total of course.
In France, German Shepherds cause 18% of dog bite attacks, 16% for Labradors. Generally bigger dogs -> more reported bite attacks, with some exceptions here and there where popular breeds end up higher.
Still, most studies don't find a direct connection between a dogs nature and their inclination to attack, or a weak one at best. There is of course a link between the breed and the severity of the attack however.
They literally did the opposite with foxes. Some guy kept breeding the nicest ones until he got a "breed" that wouldn't want to murder you on sight. I'm pretty sure levels of aggression absolutely are something innate in some animals.
Russian silver fox im pretty sure
Also he did it both ways. On population selected for nice behavior became dog like. One population selected for aggression. The second population goes insane when someone enters the room trying to attack through the cage door.
Exactly. I mean, dogs are wolves that were bred to be less aggressive and more suitable to be companions to human. Of course it can go the other way.
Science and the American Veterinary Medical Association would love to have a word with you. But I guess you do love the literal pitbull hate community so who cares what you think on the matter.
Science
Do you have a source for that? Because everything I've read says completely the opposite. The 'science' I'm aware of says that genetic tendency to aggression is very much a thing, even in humans.
It is a thing, but most controlled studies haven’t found pitbulls to be inherently more aggressive than other breeds, just more dangerous if they happen to attack. Any dog that is poorly socialized will probably attack someone sooner or later, they just weren’t bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pitbulls were. So maybe there is a discussion to be had about “dangerous” breeds, but it’s not a genetics one.
I think another factor is the owner. Usually people who want agressive murder dog with the same name as the whitest rapper get it for a reason and don't train the dog.
Its often low income people wearing tracksuits and man purses.
Can you cite any sources?
It is a thing, but most controlled studies haven’t found pitbulls to be inherently more aggressive than other breeds, just more dangerous if they happen to attack.
Isn't that the issue? From what I've heard, the big issue isn't just that they attack, but they lock on and it's hard to get them to release their target. Like, a small dog can absolutely bite you, but will it kill you? Is it going to rip a limb off? If you give it a good hit, is it still going to be holding on for dear life? You say other dogs just "weren't bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pit bills were." That sounds an awful lot like a dog that was bred to be aggressive or, at the very least, cause maximum damage when triggered. That's something that needs to be considered when adopting or breeding a pet that's supposed to not just be around people, but in the home.
It's both. It's insane to me someone can watch animals instinctively display insanely complex behaviors untaught (e.g. herding by australian shepards) and the scientific research to reduce aggression in a related species before coming to the conclusion that there is no way whatsoever that nature is a significant component. Oh, and just completely ignore breeds bred for traits and behaviors seemed desirable for every domesticated animal.
Nature has no place at all it's only nurture. Sure.
Its true. Just pitpulls don't caunt cause my nieces husbands best friends uncles relatives dog hasn't mauled anyone yet.
Herding dogs do not carry out complex herding maneuvers instinctively, they have to go through a significant amount of training
Really? "Science"? Hahaha
The "nature/nurture" debate is a question of how much influence each has - it's not a binary question, but a continuum.
And if the AMVA is saying aggression is solely taught, then they lack any credibility whatsoever - that's an utterly unscientific perspective.
I say this having worked with vets, competed in obedience trials, and trained numerous dogs (with the assistance of very successful trainers). Each dog is different, but there are very clear traits in breeds, achieved by... breeding for those traits.
Learn to read