3-year-old mauled by golden retriever.
Time to ban golden retrievers.
They are dangerous to humanity.
Can’t be trusted.
Ever.
Just like a loaded gun–ready to go off at any time.
Miley, we’re on to you!
Nota bene: In case you didn’t know, most of this post is satire.
Miley attacks only wasps (and by that I mean those of the paper variety, not White Anglo-Saxon Protestants).
You know, having read the article, I almost don’t know where to start.
The child was bitten by “a normally friendly GR” owned by someone other than the babysitters. [read: The dog never sent anyone to the hospital before, at least as far as we know, and it’s a freaking GR, so we just assumed it was bomb-proof.]
The sitter’s boyfriend is quoted as saying, “I don’t know if they were patting it together or what.” [read: No one was watching the kids when it happened, except the “normally friendly” GR, that is.]
The dog “mauled the tot from her eye to her cheek.” [Not to in any way dismiss the trauma suffered by said tot, but isn’t that a little like saying, “he was drowned up to his ankles”?]
I’ve seen more kids bitten by GRs than by pit bulls, and I actually deal with a lot more PBs than GRs. I chalk it up to the errant assumption that GRs are guaranteed gentle and reliable right out of the box. Just add water and some really crappy food from the supermarket. No training or adult supervision required.
Sad.
One other part to that mix:
Make sure it’s a puppy mill golden or the result of a backyard breeding.
And one other:
This attitude (which is pretty common)
“It’s a golden retriever. We don’t have to train or socialize it.”
All of that is a recipe for disaster.
The breed’s good reputation is killing them.
Yeah, but if the recipe gets published in Martha Stuart Living and is accompanied by some really glossy photography, it’s going to appear too delicious to resist.
ha!
I hope that the dog gets a thorough vet-check–a toddler pulling on the ears of a dog with a sensitive neck or back, or with an ear infection, would be a recipe for a bite.
Reportedly, the third highest incidences of dog bites are by Golden Retrievers.
It was number 4 in Canada, but I couldn’t find the statistic on US golden bites when I first started writing about.
You know this hasn’t done a thing to their popularity.
And I’ve never heard of anyone losing their homeowner’s policy because they have a golden retriever.
I love how we don’t get told the breed until later in the article.
In dogbite incidents NOT involving a “pit bull” the breed is often not identified at all in news accounts. Brent writes a lot about that on his KCDOGBLOG. Another subset of stories identifies the dog as a “pit bull”, but pictures show the dog is NOT a pit bull of any sort. Dogbite stories involving “pit bulls” turn up all over via the AP; dogbite stories not involving pit bulls rarely get reprinted. That’s why people believe that pit bulls are the perpetrators of all/most dogbites. There’s a good bet any followup ups will show that this one is the same as a high percentage of dogbites incidents: unsocialized dog, unsupervised child. With a really really good chance that this dog, like most dogs, gave PLENTY of warnings (unless of course it was punished for warnings it gave previously and learned not to…)
>.< But everyone knows if it's mean it's a pit! Goldens don't ever bite, so this dog had to be a long haired, gold colored pitbull. All dog bites are out of the blue, who ever heard of a growl being a warning before?
The above statements are sarcastic.
Seriously though, I hate parents who let thier kids get bit. Children should be supervised around dogs, always. Even if it's your own, rock-solid dog.
Oops, that was supposed to be a reply. New comment system to me, FTW!
I think Goldens are the anti-pit bull.
If GRs are being ruined for having a good reputation, the PB is being ruined for having a bad one. GRs are extremely popular, but are comparatively underrepresented in shelters. PBs aren’t nearly as popular but are way way way overrepresented in shelters…. more than any other breed by far.
PB apologists point to GRs over raw bite statistics, but fail to account for a per capita. Raw and especially per capita rates don’t look good for PBs.
The vocal minority has to say “yes, GRs really do bite people!” and in the other camp its “Well, no, not all PBs are land piranha.”
“Pit bull” is not a breed. There are no reliable dogbite statistics by breed. None. The CDC disavowed the use of such statistics in its often misused (and obsolete) study.
Of course if you call any short haired fatheaded dog that gets into trouble a “pit bull” then they are over-represented. Any one who has honestly studied the reporting of “breed” in newspaper accounts of dog incidents (meaning Karen Delise or Brent Toellner and not crazy Connie) knows that dogs are often misidentified and that a “Lab-pit mix” would be a “pit bull” not a “Lab”.
The term “pit bull” is a meaningless tautology as it relates to dogs that make trouble.
It would be nice if the dog savvy people who come here would stop falling for media hysteria, and if they would stop using the term “pit bull” when they are writing about the 3 purebred breeds that are the only ones to whom that term properly applies. I believe the name “American pit bull terrier” has never been typed on this blog by anyone other than me.
We also have no reliable dog population statistics.
Golden retrievers get a double standard because (I think) of who stereotypically owns them.
The same for the pit bull terrier. If a dog originated in America and there is no equivalent in another country, American is a bit redundant, don’t you think? I’ve felt the same about Tollers.
You do raise an interesting point: that breed or type does need a better “PR” name.
of course the name APBT isn’t redundant! It’s the breed name chosen by the people who “created” the breed, and formed its first breed club… the United Kennel Club. You did know that the original purpose of the UKC was to be a breed club for the APBT.. and to standardize dogfighting rules, right?
People have been trying for a century to find a better name, because most normal people are creeped out by the whole “pit” thing. The AKC folks wanted to call it “American Bull Terrier” but the BT people wouldn’t permit it. Will Judy of Dog World promoted “Yankee Terrier”… but you can guess why that didn’t go anywhere. The name the AKC decided on, “Staffordshire Terrier” not only made little sense, it created a stupid problem when they also wanted to recognize the English dog, long known by then as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. And that’s how American Staffordshire Terrier came to be.. equally stupid.
Ultimately, the APBT is awkward, but not redundant. And people hold fast to that name for the same reason that otterhound, or wolfhound or deerhound people hold onto their breed’s name. For better and worse, the APBT was forged in the dogfighting pit.
The “not a breed” argument doesn’t solve any problems. This is little more than semantics. Is there some crucial misunderstanding of what is being talked about when the words “pit bull” are spoken? I don’t think so.
I don’t think that the AKC or anyone else slapping a name on it and keeping pedigrees changes the situation.
Talking about recognized breeds or the greater land-race or even the mistaken identification of boxy short haired muscle-y dogs… even if we lump them all together, we still have a huge problem on our hands. Or several.
First, that “pit bulls” are over reported in the media for malfeasance doesn’t mean that there’s some mass conspiracy to make all this crap up and pin it on pits. The “bad rap” isn’t wholly undeserved.
Second, even if you want to draw lines through the land-race and call them separate breeds to somehow divide the problems, it doesn’t make the problems go away. In the case of Pit Bulls, it doesn’t even bring them in line with other breeds.
Third, Shelters have every excuse to not call a dog a pit bull or a pit bull cross, but even the remaining dogs that do get this designation are a sizeable chunk of the dogs in shelters and put to sleep… what 30-50%? I guarantee that you can put together every single breed that might be misconstrued for being a Pit Bull and you won’t find enough of them to not conclude that they are way way way way over represented in this regard.
Fourth, you can’t deny that all the problems that the good dogs and owners say don’t exist are being fetishized and bred for by the much larger community of shitty owners and breeders. Dog fighters, gang bangers, tough guys, bikers, racial supremacists of all colors, ex-cons, ex-military, et al. are NOT buying and breeding these dogs because they’re just like all other breeds, gentle and kind and non biters, moderate and unprovocative.
The majority of pit bulls that I know aren’t like that. I see lots and lots of well-behaved pit bulls. It’s kind of the new yuppie breed. If only the economy were producing new yuppies, these dogs would be far better off.
Actually, what they could stand to do is to create an organization that encourages and sanctions the responsible ownership of the breed or type. I’m not talking about AKC AmStaffs. I’m talking about the non-standard type.
Then they could totally distance themselves from the morons, who are definitely deserving of scorn.
That’s just a suggestion that might help the responsible pit bull community.
I’m opposed to BSL because it’s prone to abuse, and it encourages the scum people to get exotic fighting breeds, that then kill joggers in apartment buildings.
Hmmm…. I don’t find the average Yuppie to be the best match for the average pit. Higher income and/or higher education just doesn’t translate in my experience to higher dog handling acumen.
I posted some of my opinions on pit bulls and BSL a couple weeks back, in response to locally proposed legislation (which failed) at http://ruthcrisler.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/lest-the-exception-prove-the-rule/. It is a breed for which I have a great deal of respect and affection.
I do agree that there are an awful lot of really nice ones, and there are legions more that could have been nice with proper guidance. But the nasty ones are not pure invention, nor are they an entirely different species from the sweet ones we’ve all met. By the way, Vicki Hearne wrote a fascinating book on pit bulls and the frenzy to eradicate them back in 1991 called Bandit: Dossier of a Dangerous Dog. See the NYT book review at http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/15/books/who-you-calling-a-pit-bull.html?scp=3&sq=Vicki+Hearne&st=nyt
And yeah, that’s not a pit bull on the cover.
Vicki Hearne, who wrote Adam’s Task?
That’s right.
“THE worst thing a trainer can do is dominate or reward a dog until he becomes a simpleton. For instance, Ms. Hearne writes, a dog’s sitting may be “full of many eloquences: ‘I heard that sound too!’ or ‘Here we are together, what next?’ ” But “when you teach a dog to sit through dominance, or through so-called positive rewards, such as biscuits, you diminish his world by reducing the complex of meanings that the family of gestures we call ‘sitting’ can have.” This “discourages the puppy from trying to mean anything” by sitting except that he wants a treat. ”
Oh. I agree with much of that.
And most people think I’m a total positive reinforcement person.
Adam’s Task is a gem IMO. And the quote is spot on.
I’ve never met a pit bull I didn’t like. I don’t feel like owning one, though.
But mostly, I want to see how skinny the reply box can get!
I see a lot of young professionals with them.
Pit bulls are getting a lot of positive press right now. Animal Planet has two shows devoted to them.
But I’ve seen the chow chow almost totally change within about a 10 year period. At one time, the nastiest dog you could find is a chow chow. Now, they’ve been softened significantly. There are still nasty ones, but average chow is different from the average chow of just a few years ago.
I would love it if pit bulls could make that adjustment.
I bet they could, but you’d have to have very intense selective breeding programs for them.
That’s why I think the “pet bull” people need to form a club that is a quality control institution. I think it would do a lot to change things in the positive direction for this breed/type.
BTW, the most aggressive dog I’ve ever known was a 7 pound mini dachshund. Now, that’s one breed that freaks me out!
Smooth mini dachshunds.
I think the responsible pit bull owners out there just get lost to all the noise about the irresponsible ones. There are plenty of pit bulls out there who are good citizens, even above-average canine citizens- SAR dogs, therapy dogs, service dogs. But they’re not sexy like vicious attack dogs. And plain, boring, average owners aren’t as sexy as tattooed, pierced, crass, irresponsible low-lifes whose dog lives chained in the backyard with no training or socialization because it looks tough.
How do you outshine that, really? Nobody’s interested in the everyday, boring, sane family dog. Everybody’s got one of them. Half the time people on the street don’t even recognize mine as pit bulls, because they’re not raging or snarling, because they’re just little happy dogs who love everybody.
It definitely happens.
I appreciate that as a good owner with good dogs, it must be infuriating that you pay the price of the real and false crimes of others.
That there are good dogs with good owners, though, doesn’t solve the bad dogs with bad owners.
What I don’t know is if solving the “bad rap” problem will help, hurt, or be tangential to the other major problems.
I don’t believe in BSL because it’s authoritarian meddling and has yet to deliver on any of the promises.
I do believe in profiling though, specifically insurance companies charging more for certain breeds regarding home owner’s insurance. This isn’t driven out of anything other than statistics and risk. It’s one of the most rational and unbiased assessments. They charge more because they have recorded more claims for those dogs. Enough where they will lose more money by not charging than they will from losing business by people who are offended.
I wonder, if the message gets out that Pibbles are benign, will they lose cred with thugs? Maybe.
I wonder, if they lose their reputation as biters and fighters, will the fun be removed from those who breed them for such things?
The thugs have moved from breed to breed, for reasons I don’t know. So I doubt that the problem of counter-culture dogs will ever disappear. And the yo-yo-ing of the gene pools (let’s make them mean and aggressive and large and dominant…. wait, let’s make them docile and friendly and leaner) has ruined Dobes and Rotties and to some extent GSs (which have their own problems elsewhere).
I think the best we can do for good owners and good dogs is to prevent BSL. It’s a tough sell to in one breath extol the virtues of some pibble culture while correctly examining the problems of the rest. Mixed messages generally mean no one listens.
I know. People don’t do nuance– especially when you’re talking about pets.
I know many responsible tattooed, pierced Pit Bull guardians. I know many irresponsible tattooed pierced non Pit Bull owners. Feeding into stereotypes (i.e. “tattoo + piercing = crass, irresponsible”) isn’t helpful, either.
(I just get tired of seeing “tattoo” and “piercing” as descriptors of what constitutes an irresponsible owner. I like to think I’m pretty responsible…Mina would love it if I was less so!)
Christoper: I invite you to contemplate THIS “pit bull”:
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/02/the-problems-with-bsl-brampton-ontario-edition.html
As long as people are unable to identify what an APBT/AST/SBT is (which will be FOREVER), it is a cruel hoax on both people and dogs to judge a dog by “breed” and not by “behavior”
What do I mean by cruel hoax? Not just the stupidity and recalcitrance of the Brampton situation, not just the stupidity and malfeasance of Denver, now being sued over some service dog “pit bulls” (ADA vs BSL…. interesting!). But THIS kind of thing which is happening all over: http://badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2010/03/trumbull-county-oh-where-bsl-victims.html. Nice family dogs in NYC public housing are also being dumped in shelters where many of them will end up dead.
BTW, Bandit was NOT a pit bull of any variety, though it takes Hearne about half the book before she spills the beans. He was an American Bulldog.
How does a libertarian such as yourself justify profiling?
“PB apologists” LOL
I’m a Honda car apologist. They’re misunderstood. Not all of them kill people!
GRs ~ Hondas. PBs ~ Corvairs.
It’s not true that they were unsafe at any speed, despite the furor and career building that lashing out at them accomplished. That case was over-stated. So too, Honda proves that just because it’s Japanese doesn’t mean it’s infallible. The Japanese are making crap cars now too.
In the case of Hondas, their unwillingness to even slightly tarnish their great reputation lead to blindness to the problems for far too long. Could this not be true with GRs?
All cars are not the same, just like all breeds are not the same. And I think the record reflects that there were problems with the Corvair, but is the solution for Pibbles the same? Should they become extinct like the Corvair? Or can we remake the model a bit and somehow unsell it to the idiot masses who use it like a rally car smash up weapon?
Working on a post that involves Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” and dogs.
Fits with your comments well.
“Pit Bulls aren’t nearly as popular but are way way way overrepresented in shelters…. more than any other breed by far.”
I’m curious what makes you think Pit Bulls are unpopular? I think you might be confusing adoption rates with popularity outside the shelter system.
You ought to see how many I see every day.
Lots of people have them.
Pit bull types are very popular in my area, too. They’re as ubiquitous as the “shepherd mix”.
Chicago is lousy with them. My Alderman has one. Three of my staff own one or more. The chick that did the flowers for my wedding has one. My UPS guy has two. As far as I can tell, there are at least ten pit bulls for every Golden Retriever within a ten mile radius.
Read the language, dear. I didn’t say Bull breeds weren’t popular. I said they weren’t as popular. Someone has to be breeding the piss out of them if you can kill 800,000-1,000,000 of them per year. Year after year.
Keeping them is another story, and if you’d like to convince me that they aren’t way overrepresented in being killed in shelters, then you’re going to have to show that they actually comprise 30-58% of the dogs out there.
Good luck, I won’t hold my breath.
And if you want to go by anecdotal “I know people with them!” … well, then my assessment would be that 70% of the dogs in the country are very talented well trained Border Collies based on the population of dogs I see all the time.
Please do not call me dear, thanks.
Why do you believe they do not represent a 1/3 of the dogs out there?
As to the types of dogs I see: Well, I don’t spend a lot of time around specific breeds of dogs, like you do. I spend a lot of time around dogs living in a variety of cities and neighborhoods. I see a lot of different dogs!
It might be useful to remember that an anecdote is a story, anecdata is more salient and provocative than one story. Why people completely disregard anecdata is beyond me – it’s often very useful to researchers.
Why don’t I think that 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 dogs is a Bull type? Because it simply isn’t true. Probably by a factor of 10.
2-5%. Please prove me wrong.
That you’d think something as preposterous that Bull types make up half of all dogs shows that you’re not looking at the breed or their deeds objectively in any way.
Living a lie doesn’t help you or the dogs.
Christopher: You have no evidence to back up your claim that 33% of dogs in this country are not Pit Bull type dogs. None. Prove me wrong.
There isn’t any evidence, of course. There are no reliable dog population statistics that encompass ALL dogs. A census would be nice.
The data available is sketchy, at best. Seattle ranks Pit Bulls as No. 7 for licensed dogs. But they also only have a compliance rate of 20%. Garner, NC ranks Pit Bulls as No. 2 for licensed dogs (I’d assume they have a 10% compliance rate, which is normal). Riverside County Animal Control estimates 1/2 the dogs in their county are Pit Bulls. That’s three examples of three different regions of the country in which licensed rates and estimated pop stats are quite varied.
I think we can safely say that neither of us have any solid evidence except our own anecdata and the few stats out there with licensed dog rates (which, of course, are unreliable based not on pedigree but on visual identification and best guesses). I can admit that. Can you?
According to this: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/09/7-8/JulyAug2009.pdf
58 percent of all dogs euthanized in the US were pit bulls or pit bull types.
I don’t know whether these numbers are true or if this information is accurate.
I just thought I’d put it in here to see what you thought.
b.s.: there are NO national statistics, only survey data, on dogs killed in shelters. There certainly aren’t any by breed. BTW: “Animal people” is Merritt Clifton’s rag, and he is the LAST person anyone should use as a source.
http://dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/2007/11/wheres-clifton-report.html
Observationally, we can agree that pit bull type dogs are extremely common in certain areas. And less common in others. And uncommon in others. The more common they are, the more likely they are to end up in shelters. And because of cruel retrograde policies that treat them differently from other types of dogs, the more likely they are to be killed.
Rinalia: scientifically speaking, you can’t prove a negative, so your challenge to Christoper isn’t really on point.
Just remember that in California, the number one breed surrendered to animal shelters is the Chihuahua: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/lifestyle/paris-hilton-syndrome-causes-chihuahua-plague-in-dog-shelters_100297326.html
A 60 lb Chihuahua would be a disaster.
How many of those Chihuahuas do they end up putting down? I saw that Hagel paid $1,000 a piece just to fly some across country. What a waste of money.
Here, read MY comment, sweetie-pie:
Pit bull type dogs are popular. That means that we’d expect a large number of them in shelters, just like any slice of the pet population. You seem to acknowledge this, yet refuse to accept it.
You’re using your own anecdotes to assert that they make up a disproportionate large slice of the shelter population that can’t be accounted for by other factors that other’s have already pointed out that have nothing to do with some special flaw in this ‘breed’.
Chris, sweetie, you got nothin’. There’s nothing that makes them as a group especially dangerous. There is no spoon. There is no “pit bull problem” but what the media has made. It’s a waste of energy to focus on them this way.
It’s not as bad as this:
Also: I like run-on sentences.
Also: nested comments need to die the death, and quickly.
Is this thing getting hard to read?
Because the one that has 90 plus comments is almost impossible to read!
Popular means 2-5%.
It does not mean 30-50%. If you would like to ascribe the 30-50% death rate in shelters and the 30-50% ownership of bites to “oh, gosh, that’s no different than any other dog, they most surely make up that percent of the dog population.”
Go ahead. You harm only yourself and your breed.
P.S. I see Toyotas everywhere. All Toyotas put together only make up ~14% of the market.
Would it be a waste of energy to focus on them as the vanilla pudding just like every other breed who none the less is so overwhelming shelters that they ruin the chances of other dogs who actually have a chance of getting adopted from doing so?
Shall we look at them as time and money sinks, which likewise sap resources that could be spent proactively instead of rehabbing single specimens that there’s just not enough demand for?
If we’re so convinced that no one ever bred these dogs to be anything other than generic and bland and unoffensive, why should we promote them at all? What do they even bring to the table that another breed–that doesn’t come with baggage–doesn’t?
Say Christopher: could we get you to read anything written in the last 10 years about the basis for aggression in animals?
Hint: “aggression” is a term that encompasses a whole mess of behaviors depending on what point someone wants to make. Chasing a cat? AGGRESSION! Growling at a kid who’s poked it in the eye? AGGRESSION! A starving dog snapping at someone trying to take its food? AGGRESSION! and so on.
“Aggression” is not a clearly defined trait, and it is not a trait in any breed. (It is not the same as prey drive, which IS). It’s a behavior, and like all behavior, largely influenced by environment. It’s contextual and the term itself is highly value-laden.
But at this point, you’ve just demonstrated that you really have a crappy attitude towards dogs… you honestly think some dogs are more worthy than others to be saved, just based on their appearance? So it’s people like you who “ruin” the chances of shelter dogs to be judged fairly. It’s not the fault of the pit bull type dogs themselves (most of which are completely blameless), or people who advocate for them
You’re not actually interested in learning what makes the purebred APBT/AST or SBT unique, non-generic and valued by its advocates — because you’ve already made up your mind that all pit bull type dogs are worthless.
“some animals are more equal than others” indeed.
When I was growing up, German Shepherds(“German Police Dogs”) were THE bad dog the press and everyone else loved to villify–I remember a specific incident where a Pit Bull X German Shepherd cross mauled somebody(1960’s), and they barely acknowledged the Pit Bull in the animal’s pedigree! Pit Bulls were the “all-American” dogs back then, considered great family pets! rarely ever heard of an incident involving one. A couple of decades later(after the Doberman’s, then the Rottweiler’s days in the public eye came and went), when the Pit Bull witch hunt was in full swing, ANOTHER Pit Bull X German Shepherd cross bit someone, and this time, the GSD background got no notice! Leaving ANY kids alone with ANY dog isn’t too good an idea. When I was a kid, we were given blunt, specific orders to leave the dog alone(while eating, sleeping, chewing on a bone, not to tease it, etc.) and if we didn’t listen and got bit, it was just too bad! The dog wouldn’t be punished or villified, WE as kids would! It was always assumed if a kid got bit, it was the KID’S fault! Times have sure changed…….
I think they’ve become a yuppie pet because of the rescue cachet. And of course, any dog can be abused to be vicious. AND, “but my dogs love me and are great pets!” is not evidence against what they can do to others not in the family unit. Badgers have mommies too, you know!
The truth is that these dogs were absolutely bred for qualities we find distasteful now. And the genes are still there.
I’ve only seen two Pit Bulls compete at frisbee events. One was the World Champion Wallace the pit bull and the other bit a man right next to me in the face. I haven’t gotten to know Wallace up close and personal, but the dog is an amazing athlete and Roo Yori is a credit to trainers and advocates everywhere.
As for the other Pitt, it’s lucky that his tooth caught the bridge of the nose and not an eye.
“Blame the deed, not the breed” ignores everything else we know and work towards in dogs. Proponents often make some-all fallacies, but we manipulate dogs into breeds for a reason. We intensify qualities, we make behaviors more universal.
Why does it come as any surprise that dogs bred to bait bulls, guard property, fight, or be a goose stepping Nazi’s best friend have problems when we later make them pets?
The arguments in defense of Pit Bulls mirror the arguments regarding race and crime. Political correctness over-rides the need to acknowledge the problem.
I do think more has to be done in terms of selective breeding to make pit bulls like boxers, but most pit bulls are like boxers.
That’s why there needs to be a pit bull organization that works for this goal.
I’m not touching that race and crime thing with a ten foot pole.
The argument that legitimate discussion of widely recognized breed-related traits is akin to racism, or that BSL is no different from racial profiling, hinges on the failure to remember that dogs aren’t people.
Dogs have been selectively bred for generations to produce certain traits.
Humans have never experienced this– unless you want to count the crazies in the eugenics movement and the Nazis.
Certainly, but even IF humans had been selectively bred, or, more to the point, if real temperament differences between different human types could be proved, there are compelling theological, philosophical and political arguments for not basing law or privilege on such distinctions, or drawing them whatsoever.
I don’t know if you’ve seen some of the research on the origins of dogs, but it turns out that the original wolves were quite genetically diverse– much more so than we are. Humans had a genetic bottleneck about 70,000 years ago. It was called the “Toba catastrophe” (a massive volcanic eruption, which caused a winter that lasted several years) in which the total human populations was reduced to 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs. That’s why we as a species aren’t that genetically diverse. We’re also not that old. It’s not even really appropriate to talk about human races as if they were like subspecies in other animals.
But those wolves that lived 30,000 years ago were remarkably genetically diverse. http://anthropology.net/2008/10/18/a-possible-domestication-of-dogs-during-the-aurignacian-31700-years-ago/
That diversity allowed wolves to colonize Eurasia and North America (and possibly parts of Africa). This diversity has since disappeared when dogs were domesticated and then selectively bred, and when wolf populations were destroyed. The animals that exist right now in the two separate populations of wolves and dogs are mere shadows of that once great genetic diversity.
Interesting. I’m not an expert on origins, though I certainly read whatever comes across my desk, and appreciate the links you provide.
My point was that the very legitimate societal constraints placed on casual (or even more scientific) discussion of human race-based traits, do not apply to dogs for other reasons.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT trying to shut down debate on this by playing the PC/race card.
For one thing, Political Correctness is not science, it’s not evidence, it’s ETIQUETTE. And it’s done much to shut down legitimate scholarship and discussion of issues dealing with race, culture, economics, and sociology.
We don’t have the same issues in dogs to the same degree. I personally don’t believe that human discussions of race should be shut down because we don’t like the connotations. But that’s a whole different topic.
I personally think that dog issues and human issues DO speak to each other. The Pit Bull landrace has issues with genetics and breeding, but also culture, and also economics. All of these are things that should be addressed.
I’m glad you clarified that.
I was nervous.
What you’re talking about is something that gets a bit controversial: applying sociobiology to people.
Frans de Waal has written about this, as as Richard Dawkins. It’s kind of interesting. However, if you want to see de Waal’s take on it, I don’t think you’re going to like it: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/20/entertainment/ca-frans-de-waal20
This is an interesting book: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Natured-Origins-Humans-Animals/dp/0674356616
Now that I’ve said all of this, keep this in mind:
Click to access Edwards.pdf
It doesn’t really matter what they’ve been bred for. It matters how they are owned. There are far more significant risk factors for bites and attacks than breed.
Pit bulls were never historically bred to be guard dogs or attack dogs. They were general use farm dogs, hog hunting dogs, bull baiting dogs, and dog fighting dogs, but it has only been in current times that they have ever been bred for any kind of suspicion of or aggression toward humans.
Is it really distasteful to breed for drive, for stamina, for courage and boldness and unwillingness to back down? There are plenty of breeds of dogs who have similar characteristics, and who have similar issues with inter-dog aggression. They’re lucky enough to not be in the spotlight right now. And they’re lucky enough to have not attracted the attention of those who own dogs for bad reasons.
I wonder what the state of this breed would be today if they’d been bred with, say, soft fluffy coats. If they had all the spark and drive but a softer visual.
‘“but my dogs love me and are great pets!” is not evidence against what they can do to others”‘
My anecdotes < your anecdotes?
“Why does it come as any surprise that dogs bred to bait bulls, guard property, fight, or be a goose stepping Nazi’s best friend have problems when we later make them pets?”
Nazi’s best friend??? — Dude, what are you smoking?
The ABPT was bred primarily to be a pit fighting dog, fighting other DOGS (its ancestor the bulldog was bred to bait bulls). It was ALWAYS also a pet, and earlier in this century was the epitome of the American pet dog. It was NEVER bred to guard property. Its use as a guard dog NOW is a recent epidemic. A real APBT/AST is a terrible guard dog. But if you’re going to insist that initial breeding = genes = inevitable behavior then you have to accept that the APBT was ALSO bred to be human submissive and NOT to bite (that whole “handler in the pit with the dogs and stopping the fight periodically” thing). But surely you know that behavior is far more complex than a simple minded “genes are destiny”.. and there is just tons of evidence coming out of the rehabilitation of fighting dogs that suggests that their other-dog aggression is not only on a bell curve (which we’ve always known) but may not even be skewed towards the “more aggressive” side. It may even be true that the APBT is just like any other dog in its dog-aggression: socialized, trained and managed, it’s only aggressive under the same circumstances that ANY dog may be dog-aggressive.
I didn’t say that pit bulls were bred to guard property or attack humans, my little list there is referring to the entire litany of controversial breeds: Dobes, Rotties, Pibbles, GSDs, etc.
If it’s really true that 800,000 – 1,000,000 Pit Bulls are euthanized each year, I don’t know if we need to change the breed or simply have a ton less of them. It rather boggles the mind that there are that many Pibbles being cycled each year… I seriously wonder how many live good long lives?
Could it possibly be that we have a “dog flow” of well over a million Pibbles per year but that the balance in our account is under 4 million? That’s a horrible record.
Good data is hard to find, but I’ve seen it printed that 58% of dogs euthanized are pit bulls. Even the morons who think this is a dog overpopulation problem would have to agree that it’s so heavily caused by this one breed that it’s not fundamentally a dog problem, it’s a greater pibble land-race/culture problem.
Part of it is a lot of cities require that pit bulls and their variants be euthanized.
There is a segment of the pit bull-owning population who are morons. However, I don’t think that’s everyone.
And I think many of them want these issues addressed, just so long as they get to keep and enjoy these dogs.
I would hate it if someone told me that my breed was dangerous and could never be trusted.
Also, it’s harder to get insurance in many places if you own a Pit Bull. Some landlords don’t allow them at all. Those things, plus the bad PR, makes fewer people want to adopt one in the first place.
I’ve never heard of anyone losing a homeowner’s policy because a golden retriever lived in the house.
Pit bulls get policies canceled all the time.
Some relatives of mine had a very nice dog. Not a pit bull. A collie cross.
One day this dog killed a cat on their property.
He was deemed vicious.
And the insurance policy was going to be canceled unless the dog was destroyed.
Shit. My neighbors had a very nice dog. A rat terrier. Great with kids. The first week they had her, she killed a cat. They didn’t learn their lesson; a few months later they left her unsupervised in their friends’ yard while they were inside. She killed all 20 chickens before they even noticed.
It was never reported or made the news. It was accepted that it was the humans’ fault for not paying attention.
Yeah, but those were chickens, not a cat.
“Lena Batot” really put their finger on a major issue, though – there are trends in what are perceived as fierce, intimidating dogs just as there are in yuppie suburban dogs. We all recall when it was Rottweilers in rap videos and before that Dobermans were the fierce status breed of choice and before that German Shepherds and before that Huskies, and so forth… I have a running joke with a friend about emergent trends in ‘hood dogs and how they can be tracked by the questions people direct to you about what kind of dog you’re walking. (Alas, I think Akitas may be next up, which have the double disadvantage of, indeed, not being the easiest dogs out there and having a small gene pool in the States…)
As many here have noted, I think the tendency to both want to target breeds for bans and over-attribute definite behavioral outcomes to them (whether good or bad) is related to the fact that dogs are consumer commodities and get shaped by the market and, as such, are very responsive to trends.
In the 80s, goldens were the yuppie dog of choice in the suburbs (since supplanted by labs, it seems) and my perception of them as a kid was, “bitey, neurotic and really, really dumb”.
There’s a spectrum of consumers attracted to a trend in dogs and, in the case of vaguely AmStaff looking dogs, it seems to run the gamut from garden variety urban thugs to 20 something singles who don’t want a fluffy toy dog. In truth, I think everyone’s kind of lucked out in the pitt bull trend – as everyone’s pointed out, it’s not really a breed, so people just select based on vague looks, and so they’re not as narrowly overbred as has happened to other trendy breeds in the past. And they actually are rather more people oriented and easier to work with than, say dogs bred for more complex policing or guard work. When I go to dog parks in the city, they are more or less the majority identifiable breed there and I observe no more significant conflict than I do when I go to suburban dog parks, where are much less common.
But, their spot in the sun will eventually pass to some other hapless breed and time spent wringing one’s hands about the specific attributes of the breed of current interest is time not spent thinking about smart municipal policy responses to perverse market incentives.
I think that I’ve had the opposite experience with goldens. Every one I’ve had has been super smart. I had one that was so mellow that she was difficult to motivate to do anything, but my first dog was more or less a non-herding golden border collie.
In fact, Miley, the dog in this post, is my dog. She fits my conception of what a golden retrievers (although I think she’s a bit light in color).
But the mass-produced golden is pretty close to the animal you’re talking about.
The thing is these dogs aren’t be selected for temperament and trainablity. They are being selected for how cute they are.
There are aggressive goldens. There are stupid ones.
But that doesn’t fit the public perception of them, which has changed in recent years.
My first dog looked and acted like the Duke, the Bush’s baked bean dog (She didn’t talk, however).
Oh, that the experience of over bred, suburban yuppie pets was entirely the opposite of how you describe your dog was exactly my point! That trends and market forces created a whole cohort of pooches with these features – and fairly quickly, at that – that are entirely the opposite of what you (understandably, judging from your posts about her!) find delightful in Miley was what I thought interesting about the example. As is the truth that these things are kind of transient – so trends and consumer behavior do have a real, observable impact on the dogs out there, but also change with time. So, I’m skeptical of inferring something inherent and unchangeable about the characteristics of a breed that is simultaneously extremely popular at the moment.
You’re right that few people select dogs based on trainability and temperament, but in fairness, I think it’s sometimes harder, these days. When I was a kid, some families got (for example, golden puppies from a breeder ; ) but lots of others got the family dog when that tramp Missy down the street got herself in trouble with Rover the playboy neighbor. The pups would definitely stay with mom until the 8 week minimum, and often kind of as long as was convenient for all parties concerned. The home they were going to likely visited them a ton, and it was easy to pick out a puppy based on observed temperament and that of at least the non-deadbeat parent ; ) These days, those owners are all much more likely to have their dogs fixed and so you’re likely to get dogs from a shelter/adoption group/etc or a professional breeder. The different match.coms for dogs, do, to some degree, for older dogs, adopted from shelters and such, http://www.aspca.org/adoption/meet-your-match/ allow you to choose based on temperament, but my sense of friends who’ve gotten puppies from breeders is that, even quite reputable ones that socialize the pups well and so forth are more likely to tell you the one you’re going to get (and ship it to you) than help you find one that’s sympatico.
I am suprised, too, Margaret, that Akitas have not (yet, and let’s hope never!) gone through a popular tough-dog-for-bad-people phase–they were all set up to in the late 80’s and early 90’s with a brief flurry of fadlike popularity and attention in dog magazines, etc. I think it never really manifested because, well, Akitas are often quite difficult dogs for the “average” person to handle, and do not suffer abuse stoically like Pit Bulls and other bulldog types–they give-as-good-as-they-get, in other words! One reason Pit Bulls as a type ARE so popular is because, compared to some dogs, they are quite easy to train and willing to please, and are more easily molded into being what their humans want them to be–this is one reason why you have such different and sometimes vehement opinions on these dogs! Make no mistake, they wisely do need monitoring around other dogs, and they certainly can be quite dangerous to humans, but the people who say they were bred to be aggressive to humans are a bit off the mark–their ancestry is in DOG fighting–dog fight handlers still need to be able to handle their dogs, in and out of the ring! Dog fighting people don’t want a dog that is going to turn on them, or go for every spectator every chance it gets, they want a dog that is game to fight other DOGS! The Pit Bulls that attack people have usually been purposefully encouraged that way–in the sense of guard dogs–or have become aggressive through neglect and abuse, and take it out on innocent passer-bys(or oblivious kids). The sensitive handling and training necessary for an Akita is more than most people have the time or inclination for. Wolf hybrids are more in this category–during their fad phase(late 70’s to early 90’s) many were purchased in the hopes of making them formidable “bad” dogs for images’ sake–this usually fails miserably because unsocialized or improperly trained wolf dogs behave spastically and are often painfully shy–cringing and trying to bolt–NOT a “tough guy” image builder at all! Plus, they are also likely to challenge their humans for pack leadership(hey guys, I didn’t use the “D”-word!), and/or tolerate way less abuse than most dogs, and “turn” on their owners(most cases I’ve heard, involving wolf dogs or other breeds, the dogs were perfectly justified, in my opinion!). Pit Bulls have remained so popular, ironically, because they are so moldalable by people. A ban or serious liscencing would certainly, eventually work to end the zillions being euthanized/abused(eventually, IF it is made difficult enough or restrictive enough to aquire and keep one), but wake up folks, the REAL problem will STILL be out there–the types of people who have created this Pit Bull problem in the first place! The desire for “bad” dogs” will not go away, and will just get transferred to another poor wretched breed! Unless some kind of restrictions eventually arise that cover ALL dogs(which would be quite unfair to many people), and the punishments/policing of them is sufficient to REALLY deter people, this is going to be a recurring problem in our society. And as humans become more and more urbanized, and more animal ignorant(the two seem to go hand-in-hand), the problems are just going to get worse in this department……
General observation from the pit bull apologists: Anyone who has done any study, has any numbers is biased and liars and totally distorting the truth about pit bulls. Newspapers and shelters are in a conspiracy to over label and over-kill Pitts, noting is wrong, evil people are just making it up for fun.
Let me do some Math-fu for you. If a dog is 51% of the population, it can’t be in any other rank but NUMBER ONE. This is because no dog can have a higher percent to out-rank it. If a dog has 34% of the gene pool, the lowest it can be is SECOND. Because there is simply no way that any other two breeds can have more.
Pit Bulls are killed more than all other dogs combined. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to pretend that this is proportional?
It also doesn’t matter if we’re talking about whatever slice of the breed or breeds that you want to talk about. You can combine pure bred, mixed bred, and look alike pit bulls and you’re still going to fall far, far, short of making any kind of case that it’s much ado about NOTHING.
so let’s say it’s true: “pit bulls” are killed disproportionate to their population.
What does that mean?
To you, it evidently means that more pit bulls deserve to die, because they wouldn’t be killed if they didn’t deserve to die.
To more compassionate people, it would be proof that pit bulls are the victims of cruelty.. cruelty BEYOND that of the few moral cretins who still fight them.
Because the real killers of pit bulls are people like YOU. Self righteous, sure in their ignorance, sure that a dog that looks like a certain type must be a mean, “aggressive” worthless animal.
Look in the mirror, Christopher: YOU, not the innocent victims of ignorance and prejudice, are the vicious creature here.
katie said:
> It doesn’t really matter what they’ve been bred for. It matters how they are owned. There are far more significant risk factors for bites and attacks than breed.
(1) Nature and nurture are BOTH important. It does matter what they’ve been bred for. The only people who deny this are ones whose dogs have been bred in the past for things we find distasteful now.
(2) Comparative arguments don’t nullify the importance of other arguments.
(3) We’re talking about more than just bites and attacks. We’re also talking about how many of these dogs are getting dumped, and then killed, in shelters.
> Is it really distasteful to breed for drive, for stamina, for courage and boldness and unwillingness to back down?
That’s an excellent community question. When you add in that they’ve been historically and in some cases contemporaneously bred to bite as well, we get a new question.
> There are plenty of breeds of dogs who have similar characteristics, and who have similar issues with inter-dog aggression. They’re lucky enough to not be in the spotlight right now. And they’re lucky enough to have not attracted the attention of those who own dogs for bad reasons.
This is certainly the truth. I would say that there’s not a great difference in breeding and temperament against humans and animals in a Jack Russel Terrier as any of the bull breeds. They were also entertainment killers in pits. The main differences are in (1) size (2) hood cred, and (3) shelter entrance / kill rates.
Heck, for that matter, we can probably talk about any dog that has “bull” or “terrier” in the name, plus a few other now distasteful breeds like slave hunters.
But again, finding other would be problematic breeds doesn’t solve an problems. Nor are we likely to find another type that has the nexus of problems.
> I wonder what the state of this breed would be today if they’d been bred with, say, soft fluffy coats. If they had all the spark and drive but a softer visual.
Ask the GSDs.
again, Christopher: the APBT/AST/SBT were NEVER bred to bite people.
period.
end of discussion.
Since everything you are posting is based on this false notion, everything you post is just plain wrong.
The nesting is getting painful so I’m posting my comment to another here:
EmilyS, At the very least, you can induce a negative’s probability. It’s just a lot easier to prove a positive than a negative, but that does not mean you cannot prove a negative. As to my challenge: Sure, he could prove me wrong. He could provide a data set that shows me fewer than 33% Pit Bulls exist nationally or at least in a statistically significant number of cities. I would not argue from the fallacy of negative proof.
Retrieverman: I don’t know if it’s true that 60% of all dogs euthed are Pit Bull types. It could be true. The validity of the source is questionable, though, as Clifton has a long history of poor data collection.
I’m really sorry.
WordPress will allow me only so much room for comments.
We’re at the maximum right now.
Let me rephrase my comments in the previous block.
You can continue to comment on this post.
However, I can’t do anything with nesting once the comments start to nest out to ten.
Well then, I’ll keep my responses shorter:
Christopher, if you admit that BSL is a bad idea, what is it exactly you’re trying to argue for here? What should we (as an animal welfare community) do that we’re not doing already? IE, treating shelter dogs with short hair and blocky heads just like any other dog, judging them as individuals, spending our money on individual rescue cases as we see fit, discouraging abuse, and discouraging thoughtless breeding.
Because other than complain that some people like types of dogs that you don’t, I don’t see any relevance to your complaints.
There is also the factor that there are different Bloodlines of Pit Bulls, just as there are for many dogs. There are dogs who for generations have been mild mannered pets, and others from more recent “working”(i. e.–FIGHTING lines bred to be more “game”), and lumping them all together is somewhat like not distinguishing between show lines and working lines of any breed–sometimes they are almost different breeds in temperment and ability. Dobermans use to be considered a much “harder” breed until their hair-trigger tendency to attack was bred out of them(for the most part)–if humans were sensible(and some bull-and-terrier people ARE very sensible) this would be the way to go(for fairness sakes’) with Pit Bulls. But realistically? As long as there is a well-supported(if underground) dog-fighting community, and a criminal and ignorant proportion of the population that WANTS a “bad” dog, then the problem will continue. Remember, all you young whipper-snappers, Pit Bulls were bred and kept for CENTURIES in this country, and no such problem existed with them as an overly aggressive breed before now–just the opposite, in fact! It just goes to show ignorant and selfish humans can ruin anything. Sure, because of their fighting heritage, Pit Bulls have been easier to make into “mean” dogs–and this is the root of the problem–ignorance on peoples’ part. People USED to have more animal sense, once-upon-a-time, when the majority of people were raised on farms, and knew how to control their animals. It is a shame that a noble type of dog like the Pit Bull has fallen to that saddest of phenomenon–extreme popularity combined with human ignorance and prejudice…….
It’s certainly true that there are different “bloodlines” in the APBT and that some of them are still used for fighting (The AKC AST? virtually NEVER been used to fight in its 80 year history. Christopher couldn’t pick out an AST from an APBT if his life depended on it … but he still lumps them all together with the lab and boxer mixes as some kind of unique problem. Hey Christopher: you said it yourself — ALL dogs can bite. So what’s your obsession with short haired square headed types?)
But funny thing about these fighting dogs that are supposed to be so mean… the ones rescued from dogfighters and rescued (as opposed to the automatic killing that used to happen)? Not so mean, it turns out. Many of them are extraordinarily, even goofily, human-friendly. Even more strange to those of you who are confused: many of them are not even particularly dog-aggressive and can be readily trained to change their behavior. I actually own such a dog, whose very favorite activity now is to visit the old folks at my mom’s residence. It is not a myth that pitfighting dogs were selected for enhanced prey drive towards other dogs AND for extreme human submissiveness (with confidence not cringing). The dogs of dogfighters are not the problem anyway: those dogs are hidden away and don’t come in contact with the public. The dogs that get into trouble are owned by morons and moral cretins who think it’s cool to have a trouble-making dog and may fancy themselves tough guys if they challenge another moron/cretin on the street (and a certain percentage of the stupid/naive though well meaning dog owner who doesn’t learn to control his dog)
The responsible APBT and AST breeder today select for health, human-friendly temperament, intelligence, as well as (to the extent possible), the “courage” that is proverbial according to the breed standard. Breed for “softness”? Not necessary: The breeds are already soft where people are concerned.. Turn them into pathetic fearful creatures like most Dobes are, now that the “responsible” breeders made them less “hard”? Most of us would rather see our breeds die out than for that to happen, even if the result was that people like Christopher would get beyond his childish fear.
In the end, there is no real evidence that “pit bull type dogs” bite people more than any other dog type does. People believe lots of things that aren’t true. Some people believe that President Obama is not an American citizen.
I would also point out that a fighting pit incites aggression. It creates a situation in which two hyped up, stressed out, agitated, intact dogs are in a small space with no escape. It leaves few options but to fight. It should not be used as evidence of a dog’s true temperament or their ability to interact appropriately with other dogs.
I am not saying they are magically not going to engage in aggression outside the pit, just that that particular situation is a great way to create really frustrated and aggressive dogs…dogs who might otherwise choose escape over teeth if given space.
>never bred to bite people
Border Collies were never bred to herd squirrels or bicycles or cars. They still do.
They have been specifically bred to not bite sheep. They still do.
You have chosen a mental model of genetics that includes a magic wall that allows animal gameness to exist exclusive of human gameness. Do we even know if this wall exists? Even if it does, how high is it?
We know that it’s not insurmountable because these dogs do bite humans. All dogs bite humans. Very very few of them were ever bred for it. And if the numbers are even in the ball park, pitt bull type dogs are being bred, biting, being surrendered and being killed in numbers larger than anyone SHOULD say are acceptable.
This wall you speak of is certainly not unsurmountable. A youtube search for Pit Bull Schutzhund demonstrates this. There’s even one of a Border Collie biting a padded arm in a backyard setting too.
You seem to think that the opposing argument is that these dogs are rabid piranha with hair triggers who kill their owners the first chance they get.
oh lord.. will your ignorance never cease?
Schutzhund is a sport. It’s not about biting humans… it’s about biting the target (and releasing on command). The target is not different from a toy… it’s a FREAKING GAME! At least to the APBTs that do it. Malinois? might be a different story.
oh Christopher, p.s. It’s hard to believe you’re some kind of border collie expert. Can you really NOT know that the drive that leads border collies to herd sheep is EXACTLY the same drive that leads them to herd other creatures, or to retrieve frisbee’s, to tug ferociously, to train obsessively? (p.s. it has the initials “p.d.”)
What causes dogs to bite people is, in almost all cases, something entirely different (fear being the most common). Most bites are entirely situational, fall into a few categories and are wholly predictable and preventable.
Emily S.–yes, Dobermans are definetely NOT what they used to be, and it is a shame that dogs developed to be guard dogs, because of mishandling/keeping by unqualified people(and squishy conformation show people, who disqualify a GUARD DOG BREED because it growls at a strange judge for handling it’s testicles), have the useful guard characteristics bred right out of them, and some other breed has to take over the police/military/property protection(YES, there is a need for these type dogs in the world!), but that seems to be the only way they get accepted by the general public–I ain’t saying it’s the right thing to do. But most conformation people involved with Dobermans brag about how their breeding has “improved” their temperments–certainly not for what they were originally developed for, though!…. And Rinalia, not only is the fighting pit and the dogfighting handlers encouraging them to do so likely to make most any dog fight(if only to defend itself), what a lot of people don’t realize is a lot of specific TRAINING and conditioning goes into making a fighting dog. And some dogfighters start their fighting dogs out with kittens and small dogs, and gradually work them up to bigger dogs, often incapacitating the bigger dogs(like duct-taping their mouths so they can’t defend themselves to make the experience a “positive” one for the fighter-in-traing! How’s zat for a different perspective on “positive only” training!!) This is why dogfighters will steal ANY kind of dog to train their fighters with, so NOBODY’S pets are safe from these guys(a lot of people think they want to steal only other “tough” dogs–sadly untrue–your Yorkie COULD be stolen for dogfighter training, unlikely as that sounds! So this whole process must be gone through to make a truly game fighter. PitBulls and other bull-and-terrier type dogs may have a natural tendency to scrap above most dog types(LOTS of exceptions there, of course), but severe aggression is encouraged, and the worst Pit Bulls are MADE that way(and yes, they can be “unmade”, too, but such dogs, reasonably, should be more closely monitored/controlled than most any other dog). There is no question the NUMBERS of Pit Bull bites/attacks ARE higher than other dogs right now–I think the statistics are irrefutable–but that is because there are A LOT of Pit Bulls out there(fad popularity) being mishandled/bred/trained by the worst kind of dog-abusive people, and IS NOT because they are just untrustworthy dogs–that is quite unfair to them, and historically inaccurate. Also, people have a way of creating self-fulfilling prophesies–by being afraid of Pit Bulls, and cringing/screaming/running or directing unfair prejudiced aggression towards them, such people often CREATE the potential for being attacked that they do not display and trigger with other dogs. I have worked with HUNDREDS of Pit Bulls in vet offices and dog boarding kennels, as well as met many on the street and in neighborhoods, and all were friendly and handlable. If I had acted afraid or aggressive, my statistics could well be different with these same animals(and dogs of almost any type, for that matter!). Pit Bulls CAN be quite formidable and dangerous, but they are almost always MADE that way by humans……
aw dawgs r so cute
Hi i’m madelyn and i’m 12 years old i have a golden retriever he is about 6 OR 7 now he was very bad when we 1st got him because he was abandened. But now he is soooooo sweet now;you just have to be VERY stern so please,please,please don’t banned Miley!!!!!
Miley doesn’t know how to bite.
Or growl.
Or raise hackles.
There’s the issue right there, in a nutshell…. “no one was watching the kids at the time of the attack”.
Anyone that owns a dog knows, you never leave children of that age unattended with a dog.
Recipe for disaster.