One issue with studies like this is that people are really bad at identifying dog breeds, and that includes experts like veterinarians.
“Two ancillary findings, however, were that the second (F2) generation of the Cocker Spaniel–Basenji crosses took a “great variety of form and color” and that none of the 72 F2-generation puppies closely resembled either parental breed.”
“More recently, Voith et al compared, for dogs from multiple shelter locations, results of breed identification made on the basis of visual inspection alone with results of DNA analysis of breed. Although the number of dogs was small, the major breed determined on the basis of visual inspection matched the predominant breed identified by means of DNA analysis for only 25% of the dogs. This suggests that there is a high potential that results of visual identification of breed for shelter dogs of unknown lineage will differ from results of DNA analysis.”
So unless they identified them with breed papers or genetic testing, the breed identification is suspect at best. Not to say the results would be wrong, just that it needs more definitive study.
This is definitely the fairest point in favor of pit bulls. That being said, even rampant misidentification toward pit bulls wouldn’t be enough to offset 51% – a straight majority – of identified dogs being the perpetrators when 70% of victims knew the dog. At worst, assuming it somehow did, that would suggest “dogs that most people would perceive as pit bulls are more aggressive than other dogs not perceived as pit bulls”.
In fact, shelters have been found in areas with breed-specific legislation to intentionally misidentify them to make them more adoptable. I’d be totally unsurprised if that applies to places generally where there’s immense stigma around them.
Counterpoint, people are more likely to pick a breed with a reputation for being aggressive if the dog acted aggressive.
And being familiar with the dog doesn’t improve that likelihood they know what the breed is by a whole lot. The only reason I knew what the breed of my last couple of dogs were is because of genetic testing. And one of them was half pit, and I would absolutely have never guessed. He was half pit, half golden retriever and looked nothing like either breed.
people are more likely to pick a breed with a reputation for being aggressive if the dog acted aggressive.
That’s why I pointed out that 70% knew the dog, because otherwise I’d agree. People can inadvertently imagine a lot of details recalling when they were attacked. Most of those 70% likely aren’t going to be changing their minds about what a dog they already know is because the dog bit them. “Now that I think about it, my neighbor’s Saint Bernard is strangely pit-like…”
That’s why I mentioned that I would have misidentified my own dogs if asked for their breed. There are lots of dogs with wide heads and muscular builds. And if people don’t know the breed, they will frequently just say its a pit because that’s what they are familiar with. Doesn’t mean it is true.
Again, I’m not saying the evidence is wrong, I just want much more stringent analysis and evidence in order to justify the hate and push to ban a subset of dogs.
Trying to pin down a DNA makeup to blame doesn’t really make sense when people who breed these pit bullsdogs that are colloquially recognized as pit bulls don’t really care about their DNA makeup.
If the genetics don’t matter, then on what basis would you ban the breed? If they aren’t breed conformant, then there is no basis to say they are genetically more predisposed to aggression than any other dog. The paper I posted earlier even says that mixing two breeds results in temperaments and behaviors unlike those of the parents and their distinct breeds.
You’d need to compare it to the number of each type of dog in those statistics. Even then, it wouldn’t tell the whole story because people who buy dogs with bad reputations often buy them for roles where they are more likely to bite like guard dogs. And EVEN then, you also need to consider that dogs who cause worse injuries are more likely to show up in the data because when they do bite it gets reported. I know I didn’t go to the hospital when a Chihuahua didn’t even break skin.
Pit bulls undeniably are dangerous by virtue of their size and strength, but so are other dogs. How inherently dangerous they are based on temperament is harder to determine. I’m always skeptical of breed essentialism because it’s so close to human eugenics and scientific racism. We do not have as much control or understanding over nature as we think we do, and our misplaced confidence in our abilities causes harm and keeps us from actual solutions.
And EVEN then, you also need to consider that dogs who cause worse injuries are more likely to show up in the data because when they do bite it gets reported. I know I didn’t go to the hospital when a Chihuahua didn’t even break skin.
That’s literally the point. Every time someone supporting pit bulls brings up “but chihuahuas are aggressive!!”: yeah, no shit, probably even moreso than aggressive pit bull breeds like the American Bully. They’re little monsters. I used to have a hamster who would make me wear a gardening glove because he would bite my finger every time I tried to hold him. I’d rather have my finger nipped 500 times by a tiny little hamster than have my child mauled to death one time – something the hamster could obviously never do.
You are describing the point. The fact that these bites are severe enough to show up so frequently at the hospital is the problem.
And if that’s what we’re talking about, mastiffs, great danes, and any other big dog should get more attention than they do. The conversation should be refocused from scapegoating specific breeds to handling large and strong dogs. Focusing on breeds derails the conversation every time by inviting in old school eugenics and all the problems that come with it.
And if that’s what we’re talking about, mastiffs, great danes, and any other big dog should get more attention than they do.
Why? We’re talking about a combination of aggression and the means to do damage with that aggression, and every time it shakes out that pit bulls are the perfect storm of those two things. You’ll say “but some dogs are stronger” or “but some dogs are more aggressive”, and both of those things are true. It’s patently obvious that none are nearly as much so both as pit bulls, and physiological features like their ridiculously wide, strong jaws are icing on the cake.
Assuming I’m assuming the 282 unidentified dogs were all pitbulls is the most batshit strawman you could’ve taken away from what I said.
I don’t even know if “strawman” applies, though; you might be illiterate enough to have actually read it that way. The obvious reading is that I was jokingly preempting you trying to use the 282 unidentified dogs to weasel your way into a “God of the gaps”-style argument to assert some bias against pitbulls in identification so major that it invalidates the argument.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
One issue with studies like this is that people are really bad at identifying dog breeds, and that includes experts like veterinarians.
“Two ancillary findings, however, were that the second (F2) generation of the Cocker Spaniel–Basenji crosses took a “great variety of form and color” and that none of the 72 F2-generation puppies closely resembled either parental breed.”
“More recently, Voith et al compared, for dogs from multiple shelter locations, results of breed identification made on the basis of visual inspection alone with results of DNA analysis of breed. Although the number of dogs was small, the major breed determined on the basis of visual inspection matched the predominant breed identified by means of DNA analysis for only 25% of the dogs. This suggests that there is a high potential that results of visual identification of breed for shelter dogs of unknown lineage will differ from results of DNA analysis.”
So unless they identified them with breed papers or genetic testing, the breed identification is suspect at best. Not to say the results would be wrong, just that it needs more definitive study.
This is definitely the fairest point in favor of pit bulls. That being said, even rampant misidentification toward pit bulls wouldn’t be enough to offset 51% – a straight majority – of identified dogs being the perpetrators when 70% of victims knew the dog. At worst, assuming it somehow did, that would suggest “dogs that most people would perceive as pit bulls are more aggressive than other dogs not perceived as pit bulls”.
In fact, shelters have been found in areas with breed-specific legislation to intentionally misidentify them to make them more adoptable. I’d be totally unsurprised if that applies to places generally where there’s immense stigma around them.
Counterpoint, people are more likely to pick a breed with a reputation for being aggressive if the dog acted aggressive.
And being familiar with the dog doesn’t improve that likelihood they know what the breed is by a whole lot. The only reason I knew what the breed of my last couple of dogs were is because of genetic testing. And one of them was half pit, and I would absolutely have never guessed. He was half pit, half golden retriever and looked nothing like either breed.
That’s why I pointed out that 70% knew the dog, because otherwise I’d agree. People can inadvertently imagine a lot of details recalling when they were attacked. Most of those 70% likely aren’t going to be changing their minds about what a dog they already know is because the dog bit them. “Now that I think about it, my neighbor’s Saint Bernard is strangely pit-like…”
That’s why I mentioned that I would have misidentified my own dogs if asked for their breed. There are lots of dogs with wide heads and muscular builds. And if people don’t know the breed, they will frequently just say its a pit because that’s what they are familiar with. Doesn’t mean it is true.
Again, I’m not saying the evidence is wrong, I just want much more stringent analysis and evidence in order to justify the hate and push to ban a subset of dogs.
Trying to pin down a DNA makeup to blame doesn’t really make sense when people who breed these
pit bullsdogs that are colloquially recognized as pit bulls don’t really care about their DNA makeup.If the genetics don’t matter, then on what basis would you ban the breed? If they aren’t breed conformant, then there is no basis to say they are genetically more predisposed to aggression than any other dog. The paper I posted earlier even says that mixing two breeds results in temperaments and behaviors unlike those of the parents and their distinct breeds.
You’d need to compare it to the number of each type of dog in those statistics. Even then, it wouldn’t tell the whole story because people who buy dogs with bad reputations often buy them for roles where they are more likely to bite like guard dogs. And EVEN then, you also need to consider that dogs who cause worse injuries are more likely to show up in the data because when they do bite it gets reported. I know I didn’t go to the hospital when a Chihuahua didn’t even break skin.
Pit bulls undeniably are dangerous by virtue of their size and strength, but so are other dogs. How inherently dangerous they are based on temperament is harder to determine. I’m always skeptical of breed essentialism because it’s so close to human eugenics and scientific racism. We do not have as much control or understanding over nature as we think we do, and our misplaced confidence in our abilities causes harm and keeps us from actual solutions.
That’s literally the point. Every time someone supporting pit bulls brings up “but chihuahuas are aggressive!!”: yeah, no shit, probably even moreso than aggressive pit bull breeds like the American Bully. They’re little monsters. I used to have a hamster who would make me wear a gardening glove because he would bite my finger every time I tried to hold him. I’d rather have my finger nipped 500 times by a tiny little hamster than have my child mauled to death one time – something the hamster could obviously never do.
You are describing the point. The fact that these bites are severe enough to show up so frequently at the hospital is the problem.
And if that’s what we’re talking about, mastiffs, great danes, and any other big dog should get more attention than they do. The conversation should be refocused from scapegoating specific breeds to handling large and strong dogs. Focusing on breeds derails the conversation every time by inviting in old school eugenics and all the problems that come with it.
Why? We’re talking about a combination of aggression and the means to do damage with that aggression, and every time it shakes out that pit bulls are the perfect storm of those two things. You’ll say “but some dogs are stronger” or “but some dogs are more aggressive”, and both of those things are true. It’s patently obvious that none are nearly as much so both as pit bulls, and physiological features like their ridiculously wide, strong jaws are icing on the cake.
deleted by creator
Assuming I’m assuming the 282 unidentified dogs were all pitbulls is the most batshit strawman you could’ve taken away from what I said.
I don’t even know if “strawman” applies, though; you might be illiterate enough to have actually read it that way. The obvious reading is that I was jokingly preempting you trying to use the 282 unidentified dogs to weasel your way into a “God of the gaps”-style argument to assert some bias against pitbulls in identification so major that it invalidates the argument.
deleted by creator
Maybe because your conception of literacy is narrow-mindedly focused on technical correctness instead of comprehension.
deleted by creator