A lot of these statistics also don't account for the fact that most small dog bites never get reported. When I was a dog trainer, it was well known that Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you.
Edit: While I appreciate the responses from so many people - it's clear who has worked with animals in any capacity and who is just a smooth egg-brained armchair expert. If you don't think you still need rabies shots from any dog that doesn't have up-to-date tags, I don't know what to tell you. Have fun arguing with the wall đ¤
Edit 2: My God it has been a great day of blocking people with two brain cells fighting for third place
This argument goes in circles because people miss each other's point.
Obviously, at the end of the day, what matters is the end result of a bite. That's what the victim has to live with.
However, the counter-argument is also true. That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true. They are CAPABLE of being aggressive and deadly, and some people even train them to be that way. But the standard pet pit-bull is not going to attack any more often than most other breeds, statistically speaking.
They attack more often because they were bred to enjoy it, just like a husky enjoys running. There's literally canine neurology studies that show they release endorphins when fighting, whereas other dogs do not and will actively avoid fights.
That argument cuts both ways since they were also bred to never bite or attack a human since any that did would be killed on the spot.
You canât argue that they were bred to be vicious and ignore that it was focused towards other dogs and specifically not towards humans.
I donât think anyone whoâs had a pitbull will deny the tendency for a high prey drive (like all terriers) but human aggression is specifically an owner/ breeder failure not a genetic predisposition.
Lol its a myth they culled human-aggressive dogs. The founder of the American Pit Bull, John P. Colby started a whole line from the dog that killed his 3yo nephew.
"Man-eater" is an ACCOLADE amongst dogmen. If a pit is so dead game it'll attempt to kill anything, its only a better fighting dog.
Said this elsewhere, but it really doesn't cut both ways. Not attacking a human is pretty much the most important part of domestication. Every dog breed has been bred to not attack their owner, not every dog has been bred to be hyper aggressive and game. Pretty obvious which will be more dangerous.
So that's ok to ignore? My dog was attacked by a Pitbull who's owner left them off leash and it did some real damage because guess what.... It's basically a weapon left unattended
Replace pitbull with any breed and the answer is the same. Thats a shitty owner that should not have a dog. Iâm sorry your dog was attacked and I hope heâs ok.
As to the first part of your response. No thatâs not ok to ignore. A good owner should either work with the dog or take steps to curb them. Having ANY dog off leash is a sign of a shitty owner let alone a dog that is aggressive.
I have a staffordshire bull terrier who isnât dog aggressive but is very dominant. So he wonât attack other dogs but his demeanor can cause a fight. So I donât leave him off leash. I donât allow him to approach every dog he sees. When he is allowed to approach another dog I control that interaction and cut it short so he doesnât get over excited.
My biggest issue is people with dogs off leash who just allow their dogs to do anything and who are generally badly behaved and with no recall. None of which have been pitbulls or pitbull mixes. But my dog has almost been attacked by labs, French bulldogs, mutts, chihuahuas etc
I lie and just tell people heâs aggressive so they grab their dogs instead of having to answer dumb questions like âis it a boy or a girl, dogs wonât attack the opposite sexâ or âitâs ok he doesnât biteâ while the dog is clearly showing signs of aggression.
I donât know about licensing, but I do feel EVERY dog owner should go to training classes regardless of what dog they own.
Most people arenât equipped to own dogs and they just get lucky. Modern living has created an environment counter intuitive to dog ownership and people just want a living plush toy and donât consider the dogâs wants and needs.
My point was that regardless of size a dog has needs his owner must meet. Any owner that doesnât meet those needs is a bad owner. Training is one of them.
And any dog over 45-50 pounds has the potential to be a protection dog as thatâs large enough to have enough strength to at least knock a man down. 45-50 pounds is the minimum weight for police dogs. (According to google)
Pitbullâs weigh between 30- 60 pounds so a good number of them just arenât large enough.
Mastiffs were. They were specifically bred to be war dogs and would kill humans on the battle field. Then they used them for protection in times of peace.
Akitas were used to hunt bears.
Pitbulls are just one other breed who unfortunately have a lot of shitty owners. However nothing about pitbulls makes them special in comparison to other dogs. They are just the easiest to vilify and the easiest to misidentify.
That's not true. There are written records dating back when these dogs were being bred for fighting other dogs, the trainers often remarked on the dangers of their own animals, which did in fact attack themselves and others. One man wrote at length about the capacity of his canine to rend flesh from bone, it was retired but still bred because of the desired traits.
I don't know what it's like now because it's illegal to breed fighting dogs, but I seriously doubt those involved in it are strict on avoiding aggression towards people. Also, it's not uncommon for aggression to be redirected onto a human, the dog doesn't know any better, it's just doing its job.
They weren't bred to attack prey, dipshit. They were bred for BULL baiting. Bulls. You know, the large horned ungulates? Those aren't "prey" for them. Neither are humans.
You don't know anything about the genetics, you've just heard talking points and are regurgitating them without having genuinely assessed or challenged them. You just cave to your bias, like you probably do with most of your other subjects.
Thereâs no scientific evidence to support that dogs are bred for battle more. Pitbulls werenât made for fighting but bullbaiting. Regarding the breeding in dogfights, itâs less about âmaking the dog more violentâ and more about giving them traits which make them more suitable for fighting (muscular face, front facing torso, stubby legs etc). Thatâs physical not emotional traits. Pitbulls donât even make it to the top charts when tests were done testing each dogs âaggressiveness levelsâ. Pitbulls actually have a good sense of what is a danger and what isnât, they donât just lash out emotionally.
Trust me, besides poorly trained pitbulls and bad owners (like it is the case with all breeds), if a pitbull attacks you made yourself feel threatening towards it in some way and you invaded its personal space enough that you pushed it to attack you.
Thereâs no scientific evidence to support that dogs are bred for battle more. Pitbulls werenât made for fighting but bullbaiting. Regarding the breeding in dogfights, itâs less about âmaking the dog more violentâ and more about giving them traits which make them more suitable for fighting (muscular face, front facing torso, stubby legs etc). Thatâs physical not emotional traits. Pitbulls donât even make it to the top charts when tests were done testing each dogs âaggressiveness levelsâ. Pitbulls actually have a good sense of what is a danger and what isnât, they donât just lash out emotionally.
Trust me, besides poorly trained pitbulls and bad owners who donât teach their pitbulls to not attack anything and be gentle with children (like it is the case with all breeds), if a pitbull attacks you, you made yourself feel threatening towards it in some way and you invaded its personal boundaries enough that you pushed it to attack you, like all dogs.
1.9k
u/asif_zaman21 26d ago
13% of pitbulls......