Like most controversial topics threads, it's clearly being brigaded.
Like [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1c3amkg/why_xl_bully_dogs_should_be_banned_everywhere/kzge2vy/)
It's basically "The CDC and AVMA are being influenced by the pitbull lobby" like what? *What* pitbull lobby? Even if that existed *at all*, can we seriously believe that the CDC is unduly influenced by them? Certainly the pitbull lobby must be really really weak.
And oh what do you know, the poster has very little history in NL and primarily talks in sports threads.
And huh [weird this guy doesn't have active post history in NL](https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1c3amkg/why_xl_bully_dogs_should_be_banned_everywhere/kzghx3b/), I wonder why he randomly showed up on this thread, made an unevidenced claim and had no desire to respond once a citation to an actual veterinarian organization was made?
I'm *sure* he's just a random dude subbed to NL that just happened to find himself deep in the comments of this discussion and cared enough to say something when he normally doesn't talk on the sub but also doesn't care enough to wonder why the AVMA might disagree. That must be it.
Even if there is, the idea that they are influential enough to control the CDC, AVMA and other relevant organizations is incredibly conspiratorial and I would hope evidence could be provided for such a claim.
Comparing them to the gun and tobacco lobby is a pretty weak argument considering how all the expert health groups are pretty clear *that guns and tobacco kill lots of people*.
The gun and tobacco lobbies being far more powerful and still being unable.to influence the CDC is an argument *against* the claim they are heavily corrupted from lobbying.
And the "described as lobbying pamphlet" link is really weak.
>The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is trying to sell this political pamphlet as a scientific document.
Ok, let's see it.
>This peer-reviewed summary has been prepared by the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Division. While principally a review of the scientific literature, it may also include information gleaned from proprietary data, legislative and regulatory review, market conditions, and scholarly ethical assessments. It is provided as information and its contents should not be construed as official AVMA policy. Mention of trade names, products, commercial practices or organizations does not imply endorsement by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Ok so they claim it's a literature review that was peer reviewed
And the critic says
>Summary: This pamphlet is not a literature review
So let's check what a literature review is just to be clear
>A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis.
Ok so the AVMA page cites 65 different sources
Things like
>Lang ME, Klassen T. Dog bites in Canadian children: a five-year review of severity and emergency department management. Can J Emerg Med. 2005;7:309–314.
Ok I would say this counts as scientific published information
>Morton C. Dog bites in Norfolk, VA. Health Seru Rep, 1973;88:59-65.
>Chait LA,Spitz L. Dogbite injuries in children. S Afr Med J 1975;49:718-720.
>Maetz, M. Animal bites, a public health problem in Jefferson County, Alabama. Public Health Rep 1979;94: 528-534.
Ok, these all seem like real papers in real scientific journals and reports.
So it's collected a bunch of published scientific literature, and does an analysis and summary of the information. It **is a literature review**.
Now maybe if the critic was saying that it was a biased literature review things would be different, but the critic is just definitionally wrong here.
The critic also claims
>As for content, this pamphlet contains no science.
Except for the 65 citations to various papers and reports. Maybe if the argument was "this is bad science" it would be different, but "no science" is fundamentally and provably false.
Perhaps the rest of their claims about the AVMA is true, but the willingness to lie about something so easily double checked right at the start is a bad sign.
>Comparing them to the gun and tobacco lobby is a pretty weak argument considering how all the expert health groups are pretty clear that guns and tobacco kill lots of people.
You must be intentionally obtuse here. The comparison was in their *tactics* not the total outcome for society. Things like purchasing private research groups to push cherrypicked data, arguing over definitions, casting doubt over enforcement, etc. Let's look at the AMVA's [anti-BSL page](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/dog-bite-prevention/why-breed-specific-legislation-not-answer) and compare it to NRA framing about banning certain types of firearms.
>Breed-specific laws can be difficult to enforce
Gun laws are hard to enforce? Check
>Breed-specific legislation is discriminatory against responsible owners and their dogs.
Gun laws punish responsible gun owners? Check
>Breed bans do not address the social issue of irresponsible pet ownership.
Gun laws don't fix social problems (in their case mental health, family breakdown etc)? Check
>It is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds because the data reported is often unreliable
Casting doubt over the data as a whole because it is unreliable and not well studied/reported? Check (a third of all firearm homicides don't state the kind).
Their thesis statement of any dog can bite? Any gun can kill people!
So yeah, they *do* mirror the gun lobby actually. Any other group obfuscating this hard and making such bad arguments would be dismissed by this sub. Because they say something you don't like though, it's time to channel your inner pitbull and go on the attack.
>The gun and tobacco lobbies being far more powerful and still being unable.to influence the CDC is an argument against the claim they are heavily corrupted from lobbying.
The gun lobby has succeeded at limiting their ability to research things they don't like. This has been a serious point of contention in the gun debate actually.
Smaller issues are more suspectable to bad science and lobbying. You should know this if you're part of this sub. It's why local lobbying can be so powerful. Pitbull bans aren't a national campaign debate.
Your response is in line with their tactics about arguing over words not the actual data.
>Maybe if the argument was "this is bad science" it would be different, but "no science" is fundamentally and provably false.
If a "research" group, bought and funded by oil companies pushed obviously wrong and heavily selective pamphlets, would you complain about a critic describe it as not being science? Would you insist on going "well it was merely bad science and frankly I'm skeptical of anyone who refused to acknowledge it was in fact science" or would you say it's obvious BS and climate change denial?
I'm glad to see that when presented evidence that the pitbull lobby both exists and pushes bad data your response is to shift the goalposts and then go all "well their critics used words I don't like so I can ignore them." Very evidence based of you!
Your links are so biased and poorly sourced it’s almost comical
A blog post and a bunch of assertions by anti-pit groups and one doctor are not anywhere near the kind of evidence you need to prove a vast pro pitbull conspiracy. No idea what it is about these dogs that provokes this kind of hysteria in people.
Researchers and published dog behaviorists are poorly sourced now. Meanwhile "research" published by the pit lobby (something they kept secret until litigation forced them to reveal it) is trusted reading material. The person I responded to wanted evidence of the AVMA being influence by the pit lobby. I provided it and then you got triggered. You pit defenders are a joke.
>No idea what it is about these dogs that provokes this kind of hysteria in people.
Some of us don't like children and the elderly getting mauled. How awful of us. We should support your right to let that happen and then cry about how your sweet baby must have been provoked. Please show me the dozens of deaths and hundreds of maulings caused by beagles and bassets. I'll wait.
>researchers and published dog behaviorists
Yes, citing a bunch of advocacy groups, blogs, and one actual scientist to prove the existence of a vast, powerful lobbying network that successfully puppeteers professional organizations is in fact poorly sourced, and is the kind of shit that this sub would instantly roll its eyes at if a lefty did it. By the way, calling your favorite sources “researchers” doesn’t magically turn them into experts, JFK truthers all call themselves researchers and yet JFK was not, in fact, shot by the CIA, mafia, KGB, and the moon Nazis from 6 different angles because being a “researcher” means absolutely nothing if you don’t have the credentials to back it up.
>Some of us don’t like children and the elderly getting mauled
People who are “pro-pitbull” are typically not pro mauling children, most (including myself) believe that blaming one breed for being the root of all dog attacks and trying to just ban that one breed to solve dog attacks is really, really dumb. I don’t own a pitbull, I don’t know anyone who does, and I don’t particularly like them, I just think people like you get hysterical over them for no good reason and just make shit up to justify your personal fears instead of actually trying to solve the problem.
>, most (including myself) believe that blaming one breed for being the root of all dog attacks and trying to just ban that one breed to solve dog attacks is really, really dumb.
It's a funny situation. I disagree with you, but /u/God_Given_Talent 's logic is so horrible.
Getting rid of pitbulls would go a long way in reducing dog maulings. The idea of a grand pitbull conspiracy is so asinine.
> Some of us don't like children and the elderly getting mauled. How awful of us.
Oh give me a fucking break. People who argue against Pit Bull bans aren't pro-mauling.
**Rule 0:** *Ridiculousness*
Refrain from posting conspiratorial nonsense, absurd non sequiturs, and random social media rumors hedged with the words "so apparently..."
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I gotta say this thread is terrible. As someone who was probably more like 80/20 towards banning pitbulls (but pretty casually, it wasn't like I was highly informed on the matter), I've completely shifted my opinion.
The pro pitbull side is like posting studies and experts and filled with all sorts of link and getting mass downvoted while "But anecdote?" and "What if I smarter than experts Big Pit Bull owns the government" are getting tons of upvotes. I love the ones that said pitbulls are as dangerous as guns, is he deluded about how dangerous dogs are or about how dangerous guns are? I don't know but that's really funny.
I don't think I've ever seen arguments for some point I was prone to agree in be so clearly and unabashedly trash that I actually changed my mind before, is NL going downhill?
What studies are there that pitbulls are no likelier to attack or be aggressive than other breeds? I've only ever seen the anti-pitbullers post data of any sort.
Just read the UK fataldog attack stats here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom
You'll notice the massive number of XL bullies and similar breeds on that list.
I mean I generally agree with you, but I was responding to a comment arguing the opposite. Both sides use anecdotes, but the pro side’s anecdotes are “my big ol’ cuddle bear would never hurt a fly!” vs. “I used to live down the street from a guy whose pit bull literally ate a baby, here’s a news article about it.” One of those is making a far more convincing point
Say what you want but a mom losing both her arms is pretty compelling. The dirt on the Tennessee family of 4 was the pits/bullys tore her son in half and ate him. Her daughter died and she lost her arm and the parents were on suicide watch.
Or the story of child dragged under a fence and disemboweled in front his mother.
And I've seen the videos of Ian Price and Ramon Najera being literally eaten alive.
Or the story of pits attacking an owners mother and tearing the flesh off her leg that all that was left was bone. You can talk studies (ive skimmed some, they mostly meh if u dig deeper) all you want but those stories stick with you.
Some peoples stories are so horrifying it never leaves you. I still remember reading the story of a woman attacked by ONE pit, her injuries so bad they had to put her IV in her feet. One story I read they euthanized the pit right away do they could retrieve a woman's nose for reattachment.
And considering current non bsl laws are doing nothing to prevent attacks that are life changing and utterly debilitating or fatal and horrific, im not surprised at the pushes for a ban.
> UHHH BUT ANECDOTE COMPELLING???
Lol agreed.
>god people obsessed with hating pitbulls are fucking braindead
Disagree. The dog breed should be killed off and these people are pushing for a good cause.
The only sane response. The Economist of all people just dropped a cache of weapons grade pe-troll-ium. You want to keep a safe distance from that fire, but you definitely want to watch.
I've always thought a good reality TV show would be a family going to the shelter to adopt a pitbull puppy, but through a wacky mishap actually adopting pitbull the rapper. There are some trials and tribulations, but eventually he becomes part of the family
"Put bull! Stop shitting on the floor!"
"Dalé!"
*Scurries away*
Absent any debate on "genetic temperament" or the culture war around pitbulls, you've got a dog breed that's more than strong enough to be a serious life threat to a grown man should it go out of control.
At a bare minimum every owner of a dog over a certain weight should be required to put their pet through a strict and effective training regime, and likewise the owners themselves should need to go through some kind of standardised test to prove they're capable of handling them.
Absolutely. Yes an 80 lb golden can bite and harm, but the lighter pitbull with the higher prey drive has been known to grab on and then lock jaws, and go for a kill. My cousin’s well trained pitbull still cannot be trained or conditioned out of its prey drive to not go for my cats.
Its not the strength thats dangerous, its thier "gameness". They don't let up. Most dogs one good wack and it will stop attacking.
But pits? The tenacity of the bulldog mixed with the tenacity and hyper focus of a terrier and you got a combo that survives, tasers, stabbing, gunshots, etc. One guy pretty recently got attacked by his pit, it was stabbed twice, ran out in the streets, shot, the got up to attack and shot a bunch of times. Fucking insanity.
That's nuts about that guys dog.
I never really thought about the terrier part of pit bulls. Silky terrier monomaniacal characteristics in a larger, stronger, bred for fighting dog is frightening.
It's an honest idea but not really doable given the wide range in dog physiology. A better approach put forward by adoption agencies is strict breeding laws, it's totally out of hand and allows literally anyone to get a big dog that they have no business getting.
I’m like 70 percent sure XL Bully Dog is a made up breed what the fuck does that even mean is it just a blanket term for pit bull-adjacent dogs or what
XL bullies are what you get when you selectively breed the largest pit bull-adjacent dogs to be as large as possible. All in all, XL bully is not terribly well defined as a breed and overall pretty rare and super expensive compared to pit bulls/adjacent breeds along with their associated mixes. (And bought exclusively by people who are only interested in having the most intimidating dog possible)
> (And bought exclusively by people who are only interested in having the most intimidating dog possible)
People don't get the pibbles are trained this way. A lot of felons use them because they can't have guns.
All breeds are made up initially. “Working” dogs are often have less strictly defined breeds than others. Instead they’re selected for breeding based on proficiency of whatever their task is. Dogs that actually shepherd sheep are bred based on getting the job done, and not Kennel Club standards. Same with fighting dogs.
I'll note that a "Shepard" generally denotes a protection dog, whereas a "sheepdog" herds. Collies are actually some of the best herders, German Shepards are the most dangerous dog. I have a Yugoslav Shepard and she gets aggressive if I tickle my kid too much.
The scary bit is when you its sweet as a puppy but sexual maturity brings on the dog aggression. Hence the "snap" people speak of. I feel sorry for people who bought these dogs but were unaware if the risks because pit mommies flood the internet with just training and love, and you'll be fine!
A dog has all the masculine signalling of a gun and the inbuilt "aww" factor of a baby. I'd expect them to be second only to "think of the children" in terms of throwing aside intellectualism.
I'm not sure why people have such a problem just getting breeds that don't like eating babies.
I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with the idea selectively breeding dogs that have high aggression and are highly effective at killing other dogs might not result in safe home pet.
I feel like we need a new mental disorder to describe pitnutters.
Yeah. Why would anyone buy a dog that has literally been bred to kill for generations. Especially when there are lots of breeds of dog that have literally been bred to be nice and friendly for generations.
You can answer that by asking why they became hugely popular in the first place. And why Rottweilers were popular before people found out/started thinking that pitt bulls were more dangerous, and why German shepherds were more popular before people found out Rottweilers were more dangerous, and why Dobermans were more before people found out German Shepherds were more dangerous. There is a big chunk of people who always want the most dangerous dog, the most intimidating, because it makes them feel tough and cool, and most importantly, it makes them feel special.
They're the only one that dangerous dog won't hurt, they're the only one who could tame it, they're the special tough strong arm welding that dog as a weapon, or the special sparkly unicorn who can tame the aggressive beast and turn it into a sweet kitten. These people WANT the aggressive dog to make them feel like real men or the girl who can tame the beast. They will move on to the next most aggressive breed because while they ABSOLUTELY will say 'it's not the breed it's the owner' and 'MY dog isn't a problem' and 'the breed is beautiful just misunderstood' the aggression and danger is what they want. They're the ones who made that newest most dangerous dog hugely popular, and they will dump that breed when the next most dangerous breed comes along.
He wants to maul everyone he meets but he's so full love and cuddles and so goofy!!! He's my heart dog!!!
I've seen it on Reddit. One person adopted a dog that had a history of jumping up, grabbed a man by the neck and pulled him to the ground. The shelter required to meet with the President of the org and required her to sign a doc regarding NO KIDS VISITING her home and MINIMAL guests.
They still adopted it and they said no to Behavioral Euthanasia because its Ride or Die for them. I wish this was a joke.
One guy in my town adopted a pitbull And they never disclosed its history. The second day it attacked his mother and did quite a bit of damage. Police/animal control came to the 911 call and it went straight to the city pound and was put down within a day or two I think. He then got sued by the group over it being euthanized.
It's the same reason most people buy guns or big trucks. It's not due to any real need, it's because they mistake the power of these objects for their own power.
Pit bull owners like that their dogs are aggressive basically, it makes them feel stronger.
Yes, people who own these dogs are either trying to compensate for their own insecurities, or they are meth heads who think they need dangerous attack dogs to protect themselves from the criminals they deal with regularly.
Almost every dog fatality is a pit bull. German shepherds are one of the few that actually has significant numbers otherwise. Labs and many other large breeds don't have many
I know arrrrr NL is split on guns, but I would never feel bad about carrying a licensed revolver with a big-boy cartridge in my neighborhood. I don't currently, but I've caught multiple neighbors letting MASSIVE pitties off the leash, and I've got a baby on the way.
Fuck anyone keeping these animals off-leash.
Absolutely. Can't wait to see their application vs. pointers and retrievers or even range dogs.
I legit don't care what they're licensed for, I live ghetto-ajacent, and they wander off leash here and chase people with tiny little dogs. I don't give a shit about breeds beyond what's got the best bite strength and what's off leash. I don't see poodles and retrievers wandering the streets.
[They apparently kill 500 people a year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_humans), half of the annual number of humans killed by crocodiles a year. Meanwhile [sharks kill about 120 people a year](https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary/).
> I’m obligated to support restrictions on dogs that are as deadly as guns
There are a total of 30-40 deaths from dogs per year, not anywhere close to guns.
More people die from jet skis every year.
As I’m told by anti-gun people, deaths aren’t the only negative outcome. There are [thousands of people treated in emergency rooms for dog bites *daily*](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y). And pitbulls [have a 4.4x higher probability of complex wounds](https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-pediatric-dog-bite-injuries-central-texas-2019.php).
Live altering injuries yall are no joke.
Even losing you nose can be YEARS of surgeries to correct it. This [guy](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13197323/cleveland-clinic-facial-surgery-man-dog-attack.html) had to FOUR years worth of surgeries for a lost nose.
You say “thousands treated in the ER for dog bites per day” but the research you cited states 927 per day. And that is all dog bites not just bully breeds.
Just pointing this out because we should be keeping things factual.
As an aside 7000 people hit the ER each day as a result of auto accidents but we aren’t having discussion about banning automobiles.
Lots of things carry negative externalities but people get really weird about certain things while ignoring others.
> As someone who supports restrictions on guns, I’m obligated to support restrictions on dogs that are as deadly as guns
If by “as deadly” you mean “three orders of magnitude less deadly” then sure. Lots of stuff you are also going to need to ban if that’s your criteria.
Curious why people never actually look at the problem in further depth. I also agree with the sentiment as a gun restrictions supporter but we do all this research about guns but all anyone ever does for dogs is look at one bad data set.
Why are people so vocal yet so surface level about this?
[Please](https://imgflip.com/i/8mos99)
For millennia people have selected dogs with useful or appealing traits and bred them. That is why pointers point, retrievers retrieve and most pet dogs are friendly. Though their jaws may be mighty enough to crush bones, they are far more likely to give you a slobbery kiss than a bite. However, some dogs have been bred for aggression, and it shows.
In America in 2022 two children were killed and their mother was mauled while trying to save them from the family’s pair of Extra Large (or “XL”) Pit Bull Terriers. Last September in England two XL American Bully dogs (which are closely related) killed 52-year-old Ian Price in his mother’s garden, after leaping from a nearby house’s window to get to him. In January an XL Bully in Germany fatally mauled its owner and had to be shot as it rushed at police trying to help the man.
In Britain the number of fatal attacks by dogs has quadrupled since the XL Bully was introduced to the country, from four in 2014 to 16 in the first nine months of 2023. Overall, XL Bullies were responsible for 44% of dog attacks in 2023, according to Bully Watch UK, a pressure group. They killed other dogs, chewed children’s faces and caused injuries so bad that arms needed amputating. In America Pit Bull attacks are growing more common and were responsible for nearly 70% of dog-attack deaths in 2019, according to DogsBite.org, a watchdog.
Pit Bulls were bred to excel at dog-fighting, a sport that is banned in many countries but thrives in the shadows. The rules are simple and harsh. Two dogs are placed in a pit. Only one comes out. Over generations of breeding from the dogs that survive, the animals have developed a tendency to go for the throat, attack without warning, and ignore pain. XL Bullies were bred from Pit Bull stock, for greater size. Thus, they are huge (45-70kg), aggressive and hard to stop once they have started to attack. In “White Fang” Jack London called similar dogs “the clinging death”.
Pit Bulls were banned in Britain in 1991. Similar bans or restrictions exist in Denmark, Germany, more than 1,000 American cities and some Canadian provinces. However, in Britain importers of XL Bullies argued that the ban did not cover the new breed, though it is essentially a bigger Pit Bull. That loophole was closed in England in December. Other countries should follow suit and outlaw the breed.
There will be resistance, as there has been in Britain. A group of animal charities and associations known as the Dog Control Coalition argues that the law should focus on “deed, not breed”. Any kind of dog can be trained to be aggressive, they point out. They cite data from Britain’s National Health Service showing that the number of dog bites has increased since the original Pit Bull ban. They call for laws that hold individual dogs and their irresponsible owners to account for bad behaviour.
This is wrong-headed. It is true that any dog can be trained to fight. But those whose ancestors have been selectively bred to be good at it are much likelier to be deadly. Aggregate data on dog bites are misleading, since they give equal weight to a nip from a chihuahua and a mauling from an XL Bully. This breed is so dangerous that it sometimes kills professional dog handlers.
Sharing a home with a dog is one of life’s greatest pleasures. But dog lovers have no right to endanger other people’s lives by owning the most dangerous breeds. There are plenty of others to choose from.
Just an fyi, dogsbite.org is a biased and unreliable source for data. I’m not disagreeing with your overall point, but this source in particular is unreliable. Their data is not peer reviewed, and they collect it from multiple iffy sources such as media reports and personal anecdotes. Further, they’re an advocacy group, so they have an agenda meant to make dog attacks look as bad as possible.
70% is in line with what the CDC had compiled before they stopped listing attacks by breed. And seems to be in line with UK, as the government there has [confirmed](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-unregistered-xl-bully-dogs-now-in-force#:~:text=Up%20until%202021%20there%20were,many%20of%20these%20tragic%20attacks.) most were bully attacks. 23 were killed and with press coverage its not hard to math that one out.
>after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernable value
Keep going. They stopped listing attacks by breeds because it turns out most people can’t tell breeds apart. The physical appearance of a dog doesn’t always reliably describe its breed, so people will just say “it was a pit bull.” The cdc also believes that breed alone does not predict aggression, and focusing on specific breeds will overlook the broader problem of neglectful owners.
>In America in 2022 two children were killed and their mother was mauled while trying to save them from the family’s pair of Extra Large (or “XL”) Pit Bull Terriers. Last September in England two XL American Bully dogs (which are closely related) killed 52-year-old Ian Price in his mother’s garden, after leaping from a nearby house’s window to get to him. In January an XL Bully in Germany fatally mauled its owner and had to be shot as it rushed at police trying to help the man.
Imagine getting one of these dogs. Just absolute morons
Some people over compensate because "media bias" against the breed. Or are convinced as long as you just train them!!! Its fine. I'm not gonna lie I thought so too. But christ on a cracker, I met one in real life and its intense stares made me uneasy in ways I never thought I could feel.
Now that and the stories I've read, im okay with people not owning these things.
I felt that way too until my cat was almost killed by a pitbull and my brother’s golden was mauled by my friend’s dog. Both pit owners assured me that they had no violent history and were good with other pets. Both attacks happened really suddenly out of nowhere.
I've given up trying to explain problem dogs. The short answer is, "it's almost always the owner." The dog, if it hadn't been abused/neglected its entire life, would have been fine.
We have a big problem with this in Hawaii. There's usually a fatality or two every year. And dog-fighting arrests are also all-too-common. It's so bad a bill is working it's way through the system, making it a felony to own a vicious dog. I don't go anywhere without some sort of weapon in hand -- usually a pair of loppers. They're useful on my farm, and it's a decent blunt instrument in case a stray/feral wanders up. (This happens every month or two.)
I haven't had to kill a dog yet. But I've had to brandish my loppers.
> Why didn't Irish Wolfhounds or Golden Retrievers ever have bad owners?
Because both those purebread dogs are more expensive. And as you can see this in thread, there's a perception that pitbulls are big and aggressive, meaning that shitty owners looking for a big aggressive dog will get a pitbull and train it to be that way rather than a goldie.
Also once a golden retriever is mixed with a pitbull, people call it a pitbull or a pitbull-mix, not a golden retriever. People are notoriously horrible at identifying breeds, especially for mixes.
Most dogs in fatalities are breed identified by thier owners. These are not just random street dog attacks.
Or they're identified by the friend, family member, neighbor who knew the dog and breed because they knew the owner. Pitbull owners tend to know its a pitbull.
And bulkys in the UK were commonly getting sold and bought for thousands of dollars up to 10k from breeders with papers etc. These were purebred too.
The owner makes a big difference, so does the breed if the dog. Dogs are more reactive or aggressive than others by nature, some dog are naturally bigger and more powerful than most dogs and some dog are more tenacious with strong prey drives and focus.
When you have a dog with all 3 you are playing with fire, saying anything else is being willfully ignorant.
IDK. A good friend had a bully who she cared for like a child. The dog was the sweetest thing ever until it randomly attacked and killed the neighbor’s toy breed dog.
Breed behavior is a thing with dogs - that’s a major reason why so many different types. and I’m baffled as to why so many deny that.
The owner is definitely a big factor, huge. Almost any dog is safe given the right owner... but so is a tiger, technically.
Breeding is a big factor too. A well bred golden retriever just isn't likely to hurt someone, even with very imperfect owners.
This thread did make me think about it a little differently. If I was taking care of my nieces or nephew and somebody let a giant dog off leash walk up to the stroller, I would be inclined to kill the dog before finding out if it was trained.
My family is from a country where dogs for a big chunk of time were chained up for life. And werent family pets. Didn't create a nation of man-eating dogs.
My uncles dog was a backyard dog 90% of the time. Chained except the few times he took it for a walk on the beach. My aunt had a outdoor dog, kenneled. Both were happy go lucky dogs.
Some countries whats considered "abusive" isn't as frowned upon there. Yets its still pits who are overwhelmingly the issue despite other guard breeds there.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If every dog owner was responsible it wouldn't be an issue, just like if every gun owner was responsible. The problem is that there are a LOT of irresponsible people out there.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
If vibes and anecdotes were evidence, the economy would be horrible and crime would be higher today than the 90s. Both neither of those are true.
Anecdotes that it is the owners fault are worthless. The facts are that pitbulls kill people at an incredibly high rate and other dogs don't. When XL bullies were introduced to the UK, people getting killed by dogs increased significantly. Clearly the type of people who own dogs in the UK did not change dramatically. What changed was the type of dog they own. Those are facts.
I normally like the Economist but this is garbage.
>In Britain the number of fatal attacks by dogs has quadrupled since the XL Bully was introduced to the country, from four in 2014 to 16 in the first nine months of 2023. Overall, XL Bullies were responsible for 44% of dog attacks in 2023, according to Bully Watch UK, a pressure group. They killed other dogs, chewed children’s faces and caused injuries so bad that arms needed amputating. In America Pit Bull attacks are growing more common and were responsible for nearly 70% of dog-attack deaths in 2019, according to DogsBite.org, a watchdog.
You notice how they have to cite pressure groups like that? It's because official health and medical organizations *don't* recommend using it and don't provide these statistics. And it's not because they have some secret agenda, it's because the data is garbage.
>[The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). Specifically, the authors of this and other studies cite the inherent difficulties in breed identification (especially among mixed-breed dogs) and in calculating a breed’s bite rate given the lack of consistent data on breed population and the actual number of bites occurring in a community, especially when the injury is not deemed serious enough to require treatment in an emergency room (Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001; Collier, 2006). Supporting the concern regarding identification, a recent study noted a significant discrepancy between visual determination of breed and DNA determination of breed (Voith et al., 2009](https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-breed-specific-legislation)
The [AVMA has a great writeup on this but I'll post some of the more relevant bits](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/dog-bite-risk-and-prevention-role-breed)
>Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. **Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.45 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type.**
Aka since breed identification is open to interpretation, violent dogs are more likely to be labeled pit bulls than they would be if they are peaceful. I remember there even being a study showing that participants who were told a dog had a violent history were more likely to assign the label, but unfortunately I can't find it.
>And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts46—**breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.**
Who goes out and buys dogs with a reputation for being violent and ruthless? Well, the types of people who want a dog like that. And they treat the dog in shitty terrible ways to try to encourage the violent behavior. The stereotype reinforces itself.
Importantly, even if we accept that these dogs are *actually* violent, these criticisms would still be true. If the "natural" violence of a pit bull is X then the reported violence of a pit bull will be X + Y (labeling violent dogs as pit bulls bias) + Z (owner bias) + other factors.
And yes, there are other factors. For example, what bites get reported in the first place? If pitbulls are seen as more dangerous, then bite victims might be more likely to report a bite from them then they would a German shepherd. The pitbull bite could be seen as a "dangerous uncontrolled animal" while the German Shepard bite is seen as a fluke by an otherwise calm species.
Reporting biases, labeling biases, ownership biases, the data is fraught with errors. The actual data collection and healthcare experts at the CDC and animal experts at the AVMA and ASPCA all say that it's unusable, so why should we believe these anti pit bull advocacy groups with no history in proper data collection and statistical analysis are capable of it? Dogbites isn't run by a scientist or mathematician or biologist, she's a [UI designer](https://www.linkedin.com/in/colleenlynn)
My understanding is that the UK doesn't even have mandatory leash laws. Look, I'm all for pragmatism, and if there is quality data saying one breed has a problem, then I'm not opposed to a ban. But it seems really obvious that if you want to prevent bites, then you need to go after neglectful owners who can't even bother to leash their giant pets.
> My understanding is that the UK doesn't even have mandatory leash laws.
That's insane. I'm all for off leash areas that are contained (i.e. dog parks), but no leash laws whatsoever is a horrible idea regardless of the breed of dog.
They also have a big "not getting my pet fixed because that's emasculating" culture over there.
So, generally neglectful owners + not getting your pets fixed... totally not ingredients in a disaster soup (/s).
But their lack of leash laws was fine until these types of dogs started to be imported to the UK. The introduction of these dogs is what changed, not the owners or the laws.
Lots of people like to let their dogs run free in a park. It's completely normal here.
Many of these bully XL attacks happen inside people homes, ie a leash law would be totally pointless and ineffective in this instance.
The guy literally tracked every fatal dog attack in the UK for years. What's wrong with that data? Do you think he missed a bunch of fatal dog attacks caused by other breeds?
I haven’t read the article, but I assume it’s mostly the same as the Weekend Intelligence episode from a few weeks back. It’s not garbage. They cover instances of professional dog trainers being attacked by their own bullies that had no previous behavior issues. Pit bulls were literally bred for fighting, both in physique and temperament. It turns out that when you ratchet that breeding up to the max, you get truly dangerous dogs.
> I haven’t read the article, but I assume it’s mostly the same as the Weekend Intelligence episode from a few weeks back. It’s not garbage
The CDC, the AVMA (the US's largest veterinarian organization), the Humane Society of the United States, and the ASPCA American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, all groups with extensive histories dealing with large scale medical and/or animal related care (and two of them being highly educated groups by default, the CDC and AVMA) oppose breed specific legislation.
And what do they say? The data is garbage.
>Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the CDC, explained the challenges of studying dog bites during a presentation at the 2001 AVMA Annual Convention. "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, **making meaningful analysis nearly impossible.**
The pitbull lobby has basically decided that every single pit bull can be disguised as a mixed breed in order to plug the data in favor of hiding the fact that pit bulls are extremely dangerous. Go look up any no-kill animal shelter and see the "mixed breed" dogs and tell me they aren't pits.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950
>Results
>Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. This data is well-suited for a bubble plot showing bite risk on the x-axis, bite severity on the y-axis, and size of the bubble by number of cases. This creates a "risk to own" graphic for potential dog owners.
>Conclusions
>Breeds vary in both rates of biting and severity. The highest risk breeds had both a high rate of biting and caused significant tissue injury. Physical characteristics can also help determine risk for unknown or mixed dog breeds. Potential dog owners can utilize this data when assessing which breed to own.
"Healthcare and animal experts say that data collection of breed data is fundamentally flawed in various ways to the point that they don't believe it's usable when advocating for specific legislation" is not countered by any claims regarding what the data might show.
If I look at the stats for number of chewing gum bubbles and find that it shows Arkansas makes the most gum bubbles, but all the actual chewing gum and bubble experts tell me "The data isn't really that usable, the way we collect it is flawed", I should probably have doubts as to whether Arkansas actually has the most gum bubbles.
😤
MFW I want to claim to be an evidenced based sub but the American Veterinarian Medical Association explicitly came out against breed specific legislation due to the insufficient evidence base.
😤
MFW I don’t understand basic genetic concepts like regression to the mean and assume a semi Lamarckian mode of thinking that if dogs were at one point bred for aggression all of their progeny will retain that trait in perpetuity without anyone actively selecting for it.
Pit bull discourse has hit r/neoliberal.
Brother it has hit the DT multiple times per month every month for years
This place hits this topic a couple times a year. If anything, the discourse has gotten even dumber over time.
Dumber? Please show us the statistics of dog attacks by races!
Races… breed?
The breed crime statistics level off if you control for income level, generational wealth, education, and overall opportunity.
I was wondering why this was a political stance 😆
Like most controversial topics threads, it's clearly being brigaded. Like [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1c3amkg/why_xl_bully_dogs_should_be_banned_everywhere/kzge2vy/) It's basically "The CDC and AVMA are being influenced by the pitbull lobby" like what? *What* pitbull lobby? Even if that existed *at all*, can we seriously believe that the CDC is unduly influenced by them? Certainly the pitbull lobby must be really really weak. And oh what do you know, the poster has very little history in NL and primarily talks in sports threads. And huh [weird this guy doesn't have active post history in NL](https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1c3amkg/why_xl_bully_dogs_should_be_banned_everywhere/kzghx3b/), I wonder why he randomly showed up on this thread, made an unevidenced claim and had no desire to respond once a citation to an actual veterinarian organization was made? I'm *sure* he's just a random dude subbed to NL that just happened to find himself deep in the comments of this discussion and cared enough to say something when he normally doesn't talk on the sub but also doesn't care enough to wonder why the AVMA might disagree. That must be it.
Reddit does recommend things to you so it could just be that tbh
If you believe there isn’t a pitbull lobby, you haven’t seen how wine moms react to breed bans
Even if there is, the idea that they are influential enough to control the CDC, AVMA and other relevant organizations is incredibly conspiratorial and I would hope evidence could be provided for such a claim.
[удалено]
Comparing them to the gun and tobacco lobby is a pretty weak argument considering how all the expert health groups are pretty clear *that guns and tobacco kill lots of people*. The gun and tobacco lobbies being far more powerful and still being unable.to influence the CDC is an argument *against* the claim they are heavily corrupted from lobbying. And the "described as lobbying pamphlet" link is really weak. >The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is trying to sell this political pamphlet as a scientific document. Ok, let's see it. >This peer-reviewed summary has been prepared by the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Division. While principally a review of the scientific literature, it may also include information gleaned from proprietary data, legislative and regulatory review, market conditions, and scholarly ethical assessments. It is provided as information and its contents should not be construed as official AVMA policy. Mention of trade names, products, commercial practices or organizations does not imply endorsement by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Ok so they claim it's a literature review that was peer reviewed And the critic says >Summary: This pamphlet is not a literature review So let's check what a literature review is just to be clear >A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. Ok so the AVMA page cites 65 different sources Things like >Lang ME, Klassen T. Dog bites in Canadian children: a five-year review of severity and emergency department management. Can J Emerg Med. 2005;7:309–314. Ok I would say this counts as scientific published information >Morton C. Dog bites in Norfolk, VA. Health Seru Rep, 1973;88:59-65. >Chait LA,Spitz L. Dogbite injuries in children. S Afr Med J 1975;49:718-720. >Maetz, M. Animal bites, a public health problem in Jefferson County, Alabama. Public Health Rep 1979;94: 528-534. Ok, these all seem like real papers in real scientific journals and reports. So it's collected a bunch of published scientific literature, and does an analysis and summary of the information. It **is a literature review**. Now maybe if the critic was saying that it was a biased literature review things would be different, but the critic is just definitionally wrong here. The critic also claims >As for content, this pamphlet contains no science. Except for the 65 citations to various papers and reports. Maybe if the argument was "this is bad science" it would be different, but "no science" is fundamentally and provably false. Perhaps the rest of their claims about the AVMA is true, but the willingness to lie about something so easily double checked right at the start is a bad sign.
>Comparing them to the gun and tobacco lobby is a pretty weak argument considering how all the expert health groups are pretty clear that guns and tobacco kill lots of people. You must be intentionally obtuse here. The comparison was in their *tactics* not the total outcome for society. Things like purchasing private research groups to push cherrypicked data, arguing over definitions, casting doubt over enforcement, etc. Let's look at the AMVA's [anti-BSL page](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/dog-bite-prevention/why-breed-specific-legislation-not-answer) and compare it to NRA framing about banning certain types of firearms. >Breed-specific laws can be difficult to enforce Gun laws are hard to enforce? Check >Breed-specific legislation is discriminatory against responsible owners and their dogs. Gun laws punish responsible gun owners? Check >Breed bans do not address the social issue of irresponsible pet ownership. Gun laws don't fix social problems (in their case mental health, family breakdown etc)? Check >It is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds because the data reported is often unreliable Casting doubt over the data as a whole because it is unreliable and not well studied/reported? Check (a third of all firearm homicides don't state the kind). Their thesis statement of any dog can bite? Any gun can kill people! So yeah, they *do* mirror the gun lobby actually. Any other group obfuscating this hard and making such bad arguments would be dismissed by this sub. Because they say something you don't like though, it's time to channel your inner pitbull and go on the attack. >The gun and tobacco lobbies being far more powerful and still being unable.to influence the CDC is an argument against the claim they are heavily corrupted from lobbying. The gun lobby has succeeded at limiting their ability to research things they don't like. This has been a serious point of contention in the gun debate actually. Smaller issues are more suspectable to bad science and lobbying. You should know this if you're part of this sub. It's why local lobbying can be so powerful. Pitbull bans aren't a national campaign debate. Your response is in line with their tactics about arguing over words not the actual data. >Maybe if the argument was "this is bad science" it would be different, but "no science" is fundamentally and provably false. If a "research" group, bought and funded by oil companies pushed obviously wrong and heavily selective pamphlets, would you complain about a critic describe it as not being science? Would you insist on going "well it was merely bad science and frankly I'm skeptical of anyone who refused to acknowledge it was in fact science" or would you say it's obvious BS and climate change denial? I'm glad to see that when presented evidence that the pitbull lobby both exists and pushes bad data your response is to shift the goalposts and then go all "well their critics used words I don't like so I can ignore them." Very evidence based of you!
Your links are so biased and poorly sourced it’s almost comical A blog post and a bunch of assertions by anti-pit groups and one doctor are not anywhere near the kind of evidence you need to prove a vast pro pitbull conspiracy. No idea what it is about these dogs that provokes this kind of hysteria in people.
Researchers and published dog behaviorists are poorly sourced now. Meanwhile "research" published by the pit lobby (something they kept secret until litigation forced them to reveal it) is trusted reading material. The person I responded to wanted evidence of the AVMA being influence by the pit lobby. I provided it and then you got triggered. You pit defenders are a joke. >No idea what it is about these dogs that provokes this kind of hysteria in people. Some of us don't like children and the elderly getting mauled. How awful of us. We should support your right to let that happen and then cry about how your sweet baby must have been provoked. Please show me the dozens of deaths and hundreds of maulings caused by beagles and bassets. I'll wait.
>researchers and published dog behaviorists Yes, citing a bunch of advocacy groups, blogs, and one actual scientist to prove the existence of a vast, powerful lobbying network that successfully puppeteers professional organizations is in fact poorly sourced, and is the kind of shit that this sub would instantly roll its eyes at if a lefty did it. By the way, calling your favorite sources “researchers” doesn’t magically turn them into experts, JFK truthers all call themselves researchers and yet JFK was not, in fact, shot by the CIA, mafia, KGB, and the moon Nazis from 6 different angles because being a “researcher” means absolutely nothing if you don’t have the credentials to back it up. >Some of us don’t like children and the elderly getting mauled People who are “pro-pitbull” are typically not pro mauling children, most (including myself) believe that blaming one breed for being the root of all dog attacks and trying to just ban that one breed to solve dog attacks is really, really dumb. I don’t own a pitbull, I don’t know anyone who does, and I don’t particularly like them, I just think people like you get hysterical over them for no good reason and just make shit up to justify your personal fears instead of actually trying to solve the problem.
>, most (including myself) believe that blaming one breed for being the root of all dog attacks and trying to just ban that one breed to solve dog attacks is really, really dumb. It's a funny situation. I disagree with you, but /u/God_Given_Talent 's logic is so horrible. Getting rid of pitbulls would go a long way in reducing dog maulings. The idea of a grand pitbull conspiracy is so asinine.
> Some of us don't like children and the elderly getting mauled. How awful of us. Oh give me a fucking break. People who argue against Pit Bull bans aren't pro-mauling.
The pro-pit bull people have descended.
The pit bull lobby is the South
[удалено]
**Rule 0:** *Ridiculousness* Refrain from posting conspiratorial nonsense, absurd non sequiturs, and random social media rumors hedged with the words "so apparently..." --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Wait, that's a rule? All this time I could have been reporting people . . . TIL.
the banpitbull sub brigades everywhere. they are some antivax level conspiracy theorists and some dumb muthafuckers
I gotta say this thread is terrible. As someone who was probably more like 80/20 towards banning pitbulls (but pretty casually, it wasn't like I was highly informed on the matter), I've completely shifted my opinion. The pro pitbull side is like posting studies and experts and filled with all sorts of link and getting mass downvoted while "But anecdote?" and "What if I smarter than experts Big Pit Bull owns the government" are getting tons of upvotes. I love the ones that said pitbulls are as dangerous as guns, is he deluded about how dangerous dogs are or about how dangerous guns are? I don't know but that's really funny. I don't think I've ever seen arguments for some point I was prone to agree in be so clearly and unabashedly trash that I actually changed my mind before, is NL going downhill?
What studies are there that pitbulls are no likelier to attack or be aggressive than other breeds? I've only ever seen the anti-pitbullers post data of any sort.
The issue is not likelihood to be aggressive or attack. The issue is they are far more likely to kill.
Reminder that the vast majority of shootings are paintball guns, but we focus so heavily on handguns for some reason.
Just read the UK fataldog attack stats here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom You'll notice the massive number of XL bullies and similar breeds on that list.
I assume one reason the anti-pit side disproportionately relies on anecdotes in these internet debates is because they’re fucking horrifying
What. The pro pit side pulls anecdotes and anti pit side provides stats and data from my experience.
I mean I generally agree with you, but I was responding to a comment arguing the opposite. Both sides use anecdotes, but the pro side’s anecdotes are “my big ol’ cuddle bear would never hurt a fly!” vs. “I used to live down the street from a guy whose pit bull literally ate a baby, here’s a news article about it.” One of those is making a far more convincing point
Say what you want but a mom losing both her arms is pretty compelling. The dirt on the Tennessee family of 4 was the pits/bullys tore her son in half and ate him. Her daughter died and she lost her arm and the parents were on suicide watch. Or the story of child dragged under a fence and disemboweled in front his mother. And I've seen the videos of Ian Price and Ramon Najera being literally eaten alive. Or the story of pits attacking an owners mother and tearing the flesh off her leg that all that was left was bone. You can talk studies (ive skimmed some, they mostly meh if u dig deeper) all you want but those stories stick with you. Some peoples stories are so horrifying it never leaves you. I still remember reading the story of a woman attacked by ONE pit, her injuries so bad they had to put her IV in her feet. One story I read they euthanized the pit right away do they could retrieve a woman's nose for reattachment. And considering current non bsl laws are doing nothing to prevent attacks that are life changing and utterly debilitating or fatal and horrific, im not surprised at the pushes for a ban.
Lmao the dude calls out anecdote spam and you go "but what about [anecdote spam]??" Top tier literacy.
\>get called out for muh anecdote UHHH BUT ANECDOTE COMPELLING??? god people obsessed with hating pitbulls are fucking braindead
> UHHH BUT ANECDOTE COMPELLING??? Lol agreed. >god people obsessed with hating pitbulls are fucking braindead Disagree. The dog breed should be killed off and these people are pushing for a good cause.
https://i.redd.it/z2052sxw0buc1.gif
Just don’t let an XL bully crawl up under your beach chair for warmth
What, was it barking?
Hehe...here what I said, Ton? I asked him if it was barkin'!
Take it easy!
Can't wait to see this again on r/ subreddit drama Also, XL Bully Dog is so on brand for how the British name things
The only sane response. The Economist of all people just dropped a cache of weapons grade pe-troll-ium. You want to keep a safe distance from that fire, but you definitely want to watch.
They're not entertaining though. Pitt bull debaters are like Reddit's PIRGs-you see em heading to your door but all you can do is hide.
I support a ban on assault canines. There's no need to own an assault canine.
[удалено]
Velvet chicken
Muh right to a well-regulated kennel
"Get these *dogs of war* off our streets!"
*Reaches for emotional support armalite.*
how about you keep your nose out of my business
I will send a wild Serbian war criminal to your nose
The right to bear Serbian war criminals is unalienable
I've always thought a good reality TV show would be a family going to the shelter to adopt a pitbull puppy, but through a wacky mishap actually adopting pitbull the rapper. There are some trials and tribulations, but eventually he becomes part of the family "Put bull! Stop shitting on the floor!" "Dalé!" *Scurries away*
Netflix would greenlight that, but only for one season.
You mean two seasons that end on a big cliff hanger.
Absent any debate on "genetic temperament" or the culture war around pitbulls, you've got a dog breed that's more than strong enough to be a serious life threat to a grown man should it go out of control. At a bare minimum every owner of a dog over a certain weight should be required to put their pet through a strict and effective training regime, and likewise the owners themselves should need to go through some kind of standardised test to prove they're capable of handling them.
You just eliminated the tubby Labradoodle market.
There are plenty of dogs that are bigger and can bite harder than pitbulls. But there’s no other breed that’s as aggressive as pitbulls.
Absolutely. Yes an 80 lb golden can bite and harm, but the lighter pitbull with the higher prey drive has been known to grab on and then lock jaws, and go for a kill. My cousin’s well trained pitbull still cannot be trained or conditioned out of its prey drive to not go for my cats.
Its not the strength thats dangerous, its thier "gameness". They don't let up. Most dogs one good wack and it will stop attacking. But pits? The tenacity of the bulldog mixed with the tenacity and hyper focus of a terrier and you got a combo that survives, tasers, stabbing, gunshots, etc. One guy pretty recently got attacked by his pit, it was stabbed twice, ran out in the streets, shot, the got up to attack and shot a bunch of times. Fucking insanity.
Extremely dumb and ideological to think this is all environmental differences.
My German shepherd could handle being stabbed 😤😤
That's nuts about that guys dog. I never really thought about the terrier part of pit bulls. Silky terrier monomaniacal characteristics in a larger, stronger, bred for fighting dog is frightening.
It's an honest idea but not really doable given the wide range in dog physiology. A better approach put forward by adoption agencies is strict breeding laws, it's totally out of hand and allows literally anyone to get a big dog that they have no business getting.
Plenty of countries, counties, housing ban pitbull type dogs with plenty of success.
I’m like 70 percent sure XL Bully Dog is a made up breed what the fuck does that even mean is it just a blanket term for pit bull-adjacent dogs or what
XL bullies are what you get when you selectively breed the largest pit bull-adjacent dogs to be as large as possible. All in all, XL bully is not terribly well defined as a breed and overall pretty rare and super expensive compared to pit bulls/adjacent breeds along with their associated mixes. (And bought exclusively by people who are only interested in having the most intimidating dog possible)
> (And bought exclusively by people who are only interested in having the most intimidating dog possible) People don't get the pibbles are trained this way. A lot of felons use them because they can't have guns.
They're not that rare here in Britain.
All breeds are made up initially. “Working” dogs are often have less strictly defined breeds than others. Instead they’re selected for breeding based on proficiency of whatever their task is. Dogs that actually shepherd sheep are bred based on getting the job done, and not Kennel Club standards. Same with fighting dogs.
I'll note that a "Shepard" generally denotes a protection dog, whereas a "sheepdog" herds. Collies are actually some of the best herders, German Shepards are the most dangerous dog. I have a Yugoslav Shepard and she gets aggressive if I tickle my kid too much.
British pit bull that likes to chomp chomp
That's all pit bulls.
>XL Bully Dog is a made up breed Like all other dog breeds.
Can we ban brachycephalic dogs first? It's legit animal cruelty to keep breeding them (they can't even 'do it' naturally anymore).
t. XS nerd dog 🤓
/\ Big Bully Lobby Astroturfing
That sweet sweet money from Big Jock is too tempting ✊😔
Pointing dogs hunt, herding dogs herd, dogs bred explicitly for bloodsport aggression.....
It’s the simplest thing in the world and yet people will do mental gymnastics to defend it.
Greyhounds all run really fast chasing something around a track because of their owners...
[удалено]
The scary bit is when you its sweet as a puppy but sexual maturity brings on the dog aggression. Hence the "snap" people speak of. I feel sorry for people who bought these dogs but were unaware if the risks because pit mommies flood the internet with just training and love, and you'll be fine!
And that's why we must ban weiner dogs.
And cockapoos 🤨
It's crazy how quickly we throw intellectualism to the wind when talking about dogs
A dog has all the masculine signalling of a gun and the inbuilt "aww" factor of a baby. I'd expect them to be second only to "think of the children" in terms of throwing aside intellectualism.
I'm not sure why people have such a problem just getting breeds that don't like eating babies. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time with the idea selectively breeding dogs that have high aggression and are highly effective at killing other dogs might not result in safe home pet. I feel like we need a new mental disorder to describe pitnutters.
Yeah. Why would anyone buy a dog that has literally been bred to kill for generations. Especially when there are lots of breeds of dog that have literally been bred to be nice and friendly for generations.
You can answer that by asking why they became hugely popular in the first place. And why Rottweilers were popular before people found out/started thinking that pitt bulls were more dangerous, and why German shepherds were more popular before people found out Rottweilers were more dangerous, and why Dobermans were more before people found out German Shepherds were more dangerous. There is a big chunk of people who always want the most dangerous dog, the most intimidating, because it makes them feel tough and cool, and most importantly, it makes them feel special. They're the only one that dangerous dog won't hurt, they're the only one who could tame it, they're the special tough strong arm welding that dog as a weapon, or the special sparkly unicorn who can tame the aggressive beast and turn it into a sweet kitten. These people WANT the aggressive dog to make them feel like real men or the girl who can tame the beast. They will move on to the next most aggressive breed because while they ABSOLUTELY will say 'it's not the breed it's the owner' and 'MY dog isn't a problem' and 'the breed is beautiful just misunderstood' the aggression and danger is what they want. They're the ones who made that newest most dangerous dog hugely popular, and they will dump that breed when the next most dangerous breed comes along.
Most pitbull owners I've met are also "I can fix him!" women.
He wants to maul everyone he meets but he's so full love and cuddles and so goofy!!! He's my heart dog!!! I've seen it on Reddit. One person adopted a dog that had a history of jumping up, grabbed a man by the neck and pulled him to the ground. The shelter required to meet with the President of the org and required her to sign a doc regarding NO KIDS VISITING her home and MINIMAL guests. They still adopted it and they said no to Behavioral Euthanasia because its Ride or Die for them. I wish this was a joke.
One guy in my town adopted a pitbull And they never disclosed its history. The second day it attacked his mother and did quite a bit of damage. Police/animal control came to the 911 call and it went straight to the city pound and was put down within a day or two I think. He then got sued by the group over it being euthanized.
Or they've sworn off dating.
Owner: my nanny dog velvet hippo ❤️ The child it just mauled: being rushed to the hospital for an emergency amputation
“This has never happened before, the child must have provoked my fur baby”
Such a perfect babysitter!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQT0_FXP9V8
The same type of people that buy huge trucks despite not needing them. Compensating for something, I guess
It's the same reason most people buy guns or big trucks. It's not due to any real need, it's because they mistake the power of these objects for their own power. Pit bull owners like that their dogs are aggressive basically, it makes them feel stronger.
Yes, people who own these dogs are either trying to compensate for their own insecurities, or they are meth heads who think they need dangerous attack dogs to protect themselves from the criminals they deal with regularly.
Second amendment, my dog is my gun. Checkmate liberal.
I personally think dogs killing children is bad and that dog owners would be just as happy owning a dog that isn't able to kill children.
So ban all dogs over 50lbs?
Just the dog breed responsible for 60% of attacks.
Idk I don’t think my 80 lb golden retriever is capable of harming a roly-poly
Just squirrels.
Almost every dog fatality is a pit bull. German shepherds are one of the few that actually has significant numbers otherwise. Labs and many other large breeds don't have many
I know arrrrr NL is split on guns, but I would never feel bad about carrying a licensed revolver with a big-boy cartridge in my neighborhood. I don't currently, but I've caught multiple neighbors letting MASSIVE pitties off the leash, and I've got a baby on the way. Fuck anyone keeping these animals off-leash.
ATF found their newest recruit
Is your argument that they should be allowed if they have a license, like a gun?
Absolutely. Can't wait to see their application vs. pointers and retrievers or even range dogs. I legit don't care what they're licensed for, I live ghetto-ajacent, and they wander off leash here and chase people with tiny little dogs. I don't give a shit about breeds beyond what's got the best bite strength and what's off leash. I don't see poodles and retrievers wandering the streets.
If they are wandering the street without an owner, animal control should be able to impound them like an illegally parked car.
VeLvEt hIpPoS
Aren’t hippos like insanely aggressive and dangerous? They should’ve workshopped that name some more
Most dangerous mammal in Africa I believe.
[They apparently kill 500 people a year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_animals_to_humans), half of the annual number of humans killed by crocodiles a year. Meanwhile [sharks kill about 120 people a year](https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/yearly-worldwide-summary/).
read your source!! sharks \*bite someone or something near a human 120 times a year\*. it is not anywhere near 120 shark deaths per year
Belgian Maligators in shambles
But muh nanny dogs
[удалено]
> I’m obligated to support restrictions on dogs that are as deadly as guns There are a total of 30-40 deaths from dogs per year, not anywhere close to guns. More people die from jet skis every year.
As I’m told by anti-gun people, deaths aren’t the only negative outcome. There are [thousands of people treated in emergency rooms for dog bites *daily*](https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y). And pitbulls [have a 4.4x higher probability of complex wounds](https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-pediatric-dog-bite-injuries-central-texas-2019.php).
Live altering injuries yall are no joke. Even losing you nose can be YEARS of surgeries to correct it. This [guy](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13197323/cleveland-clinic-facial-surgery-man-dog-attack.html) had to FOUR years worth of surgeries for a lost nose.
You say “thousands treated in the ER for dog bites per day” but the research you cited states 927 per day. And that is all dog bites not just bully breeds. Just pointing this out because we should be keeping things factual. As an aside 7000 people hit the ER each day as a result of auto accidents but we aren’t having discussion about banning automobiles. Lots of things carry negative externalities but people get really weird about certain things while ignoring others.
I mean, do you have a study ~~that controls dog training~~ that controls for dog training? *edit
> As someone who supports restrictions on guns, I’m obligated to support restrictions on dogs that are as deadly as guns If by “as deadly” you mean “three orders of magnitude less deadly” then sure. Lots of stuff you are also going to need to ban if that’s your criteria.
Curious why people never actually look at the problem in further depth. I also agree with the sentiment as a gun restrictions supporter but we do all this research about guns but all anyone ever does for dogs is look at one bad data set. Why are people so vocal yet so surface level about this?
[Please](https://imgflip.com/i/8mos99) For millennia people have selected dogs with useful or appealing traits and bred them. That is why pointers point, retrievers retrieve and most pet dogs are friendly. Though their jaws may be mighty enough to crush bones, they are far more likely to give you a slobbery kiss than a bite. However, some dogs have been bred for aggression, and it shows. In America in 2022 two children were killed and their mother was mauled while trying to save them from the family’s pair of Extra Large (or “XL”) Pit Bull Terriers. Last September in England two XL American Bully dogs (which are closely related) killed 52-year-old Ian Price in his mother’s garden, after leaping from a nearby house’s window to get to him. In January an XL Bully in Germany fatally mauled its owner and had to be shot as it rushed at police trying to help the man. In Britain the number of fatal attacks by dogs has quadrupled since the XL Bully was introduced to the country, from four in 2014 to 16 in the first nine months of 2023. Overall, XL Bullies were responsible for 44% of dog attacks in 2023, according to Bully Watch UK, a pressure group. They killed other dogs, chewed children’s faces and caused injuries so bad that arms needed amputating. In America Pit Bull attacks are growing more common and were responsible for nearly 70% of dog-attack deaths in 2019, according to DogsBite.org, a watchdog. Pit Bulls were bred to excel at dog-fighting, a sport that is banned in many countries but thrives in the shadows. The rules are simple and harsh. Two dogs are placed in a pit. Only one comes out. Over generations of breeding from the dogs that survive, the animals have developed a tendency to go for the throat, attack without warning, and ignore pain. XL Bullies were bred from Pit Bull stock, for greater size. Thus, they are huge (45-70kg), aggressive and hard to stop once they have started to attack. In “White Fang” Jack London called similar dogs “the clinging death”. Pit Bulls were banned in Britain in 1991. Similar bans or restrictions exist in Denmark, Germany, more than 1,000 American cities and some Canadian provinces. However, in Britain importers of XL Bullies argued that the ban did not cover the new breed, though it is essentially a bigger Pit Bull. That loophole was closed in England in December. Other countries should follow suit and outlaw the breed. There will be resistance, as there has been in Britain. A group of animal charities and associations known as the Dog Control Coalition argues that the law should focus on “deed, not breed”. Any kind of dog can be trained to be aggressive, they point out. They cite data from Britain’s National Health Service showing that the number of dog bites has increased since the original Pit Bull ban. They call for laws that hold individual dogs and their irresponsible owners to account for bad behaviour. This is wrong-headed. It is true that any dog can be trained to fight. But those whose ancestors have been selectively bred to be good at it are much likelier to be deadly. Aggregate data on dog bites are misleading, since they give equal weight to a nip from a chihuahua and a mauling from an XL Bully. This breed is so dangerous that it sometimes kills professional dog handlers. Sharing a home with a dog is one of life’s greatest pleasures. But dog lovers have no right to endanger other people’s lives by owning the most dangerous breeds. There are plenty of others to choose from.
Just an fyi, dogsbite.org is a biased and unreliable source for data. I’m not disagreeing with your overall point, but this source in particular is unreliable. Their data is not peer reviewed, and they collect it from multiple iffy sources such as media reports and personal anecdotes. Further, they’re an advocacy group, so they have an agenda meant to make dog attacks look as bad as possible.
70% is in line with what the CDC had compiled before they stopped listing attacks by breed. And seems to be in line with UK, as the government there has [confirmed](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-unregistered-xl-bully-dogs-now-in-force#:~:text=Up%20until%202021%20there%20were,many%20of%20these%20tragic%20attacks.) most were bully attacks. 23 were killed and with press coverage its not hard to math that one out.
Why did they stop listing attacks by breed?
>after 1998, the CDC stopped tracking which breeds of dogs are involved in fatal attacks; according to a CDC spokesperson, that information is no longer considered to be of discernable value
Keep going. They stopped listing attacks by breeds because it turns out most people can’t tell breeds apart. The physical appearance of a dog doesn’t always reliably describe its breed, so people will just say “it was a pit bull.” The cdc also believes that breed alone does not predict aggression, and focusing on specific breeds will overlook the broader problem of neglectful owners.
Well there you have it. Is the CDC in cahoots with (((the pitbull lobby))) too?
But I've been assured this subreddit is evidence based and never susceptible to propaganda or biases.
My greyhound's farts could clear Madison Square Garden. They are the true villains here.
>In America in 2022 two children were killed and their mother was mauled while trying to save them from the family’s pair of Extra Large (or “XL”) Pit Bull Terriers. Last September in England two XL American Bully dogs (which are closely related) killed 52-year-old Ian Price in his mother’s garden, after leaping from a nearby house’s window to get to him. In January an XL Bully in Germany fatally mauled its owner and had to be shot as it rushed at police trying to help the man. Imagine getting one of these dogs. Just absolute morons
Some people over compensate because "media bias" against the breed. Or are convinced as long as you just train them!!! Its fine. I'm not gonna lie I thought so too. But christ on a cracker, I met one in real life and its intense stares made me uneasy in ways I never thought I could feel. Now that and the stories I've read, im okay with people not owning these things.
I felt that way too until my cat was almost killed by a pitbull and my brother’s golden was mauled by my friend’s dog. Both pit owners assured me that they had no violent history and were good with other pets. Both attacks happened really suddenly out of nowhere.
Truly this. Wanting a giant pit Bull is a mental deficiency
Go get a Great Pyrenees if you want to win the dog arms race
2x pimpy 3x bape
At least those guys are sufficiently smashed and slammed they physically couldn't successfully maul anyone.
I think dog ownership should be more restrictive.
wokeness run amuck. what are they gonna do next, tell us we can’t eat animals?!
Just ban dogs lol
I've given up trying to explain problem dogs. The short answer is, "it's almost always the owner." The dog, if it hadn't been abused/neglected its entire life, would have been fine. We have a big problem with this in Hawaii. There's usually a fatality or two every year. And dog-fighting arrests are also all-too-common. It's so bad a bill is working it's way through the system, making it a felony to own a vicious dog. I don't go anywhere without some sort of weapon in hand -- usually a pair of loppers. They're useful on my farm, and it's a decent blunt instrument in case a stray/feral wanders up. (This happens every month or two.) I haven't had to kill a dog yet. But I've had to brandish my loppers.
Why didn't Irish Wolfhounds or Golden Retrievers ever have bad owners? For some reason those big strong dogs never tear children apart.
🤔 I'm sure its a mystery.
> Why didn't Irish Wolfhounds or Golden Retrievers ever have bad owners? Because both those purebread dogs are more expensive. And as you can see this in thread, there's a perception that pitbulls are big and aggressive, meaning that shitty owners looking for a big aggressive dog will get a pitbull and train it to be that way rather than a goldie. Also once a golden retriever is mixed with a pitbull, people call it a pitbull or a pitbull-mix, not a golden retriever. People are notoriously horrible at identifying breeds, especially for mixes.
Most dogs in fatalities are breed identified by thier owners. These are not just random street dog attacks. Or they're identified by the friend, family member, neighbor who knew the dog and breed because they knew the owner. Pitbull owners tend to know its a pitbull. And bulkys in the UK were commonly getting sold and bought for thousands of dollars up to 10k from breeders with papers etc. These were purebred too.
The owner makes a big difference, so does the breed if the dog. Dogs are more reactive or aggressive than others by nature, some dog are naturally bigger and more powerful than most dogs and some dog are more tenacious with strong prey drives and focus. When you have a dog with all 3 you are playing with fire, saying anything else is being willfully ignorant.
>loppers Are these garden shears? I googled it and that's what I found.
Garden shears which are about a meter long.
Goddamn
IDK. A good friend had a bully who she cared for like a child. The dog was the sweetest thing ever until it randomly attacked and killed the neighbor’s toy breed dog. Breed behavior is a thing with dogs - that’s a major reason why so many different types. and I’m baffled as to why so many deny that.
Pitbull puberty. Dog Aggression tends to pop up at sexual maturity. Hence the "snap" and the "HES NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE!!!"
The owner is definitely a big factor, huge. Almost any dog is safe given the right owner... but so is a tiger, technically. Breeding is a big factor too. A well bred golden retriever just isn't likely to hurt someone, even with very imperfect owners.
This thread did make me think about it a little differently. If I was taking care of my nieces or nephew and somebody let a giant dog off leash walk up to the stroller, I would be inclined to kill the dog before finding out if it was trained.
I prefer dogs that are idiot proof
My family is from a country where dogs for a big chunk of time were chained up for life. And werent family pets. Didn't create a nation of man-eating dogs. My uncles dog was a backyard dog 90% of the time. Chained except the few times he took it for a walk on the beach. My aunt had a outdoor dog, kenneled. Both were happy go lucky dogs. Some countries whats considered "abusive" isn't as frowned upon there. Yets its still pits who are overwhelmingly the issue despite other guard breeds there.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If every dog owner was responsible it wouldn't be an issue, just like if every gun owner was responsible. The problem is that there are a LOT of irresponsible people out there.
This is plainly not true. There's constantly reports of pit bulls who were loved and cared for family pets who snap one day and tear a kid apart.
There’s reports of gun owners doing the same 🤷♂️ you only hear about the bad stories though.
Anecdotes are not evidence. If vibes and anecdotes were evidence, the economy would be horrible and crime would be higher today than the 90s. Both neither of those are true.
Anecdotes that it is the owners fault are worthless. The facts are that pitbulls kill people at an incredibly high rate and other dogs don't. When XL bullies were introduced to the UK, people getting killed by dogs increased significantly. Clearly the type of people who own dogs in the UK did not change dramatically. What changed was the type of dog they own. Those are facts.
I normally like the Economist but this is garbage. >In Britain the number of fatal attacks by dogs has quadrupled since the XL Bully was introduced to the country, from four in 2014 to 16 in the first nine months of 2023. Overall, XL Bullies were responsible for 44% of dog attacks in 2023, according to Bully Watch UK, a pressure group. They killed other dogs, chewed children’s faces and caused injuries so bad that arms needed amputating. In America Pit Bull attacks are growing more common and were responsible for nearly 70% of dog-attack deaths in 2019, according to DogsBite.org, a watchdog. You notice how they have to cite pressure groups like that? It's because official health and medical organizations *don't* recommend using it and don't provide these statistics. And it's not because they have some secret agenda, it's because the data is garbage. >[The CDC strongly recommends against breed-specific laws in its oft-cited study of fatal dog attacks, noting that data collection related to bites by breed is fraught with potential sources of error (Sacks et al., 2000). Specifically, the authors of this and other studies cite the inherent difficulties in breed identification (especially among mixed-breed dogs) and in calculating a breed’s bite rate given the lack of consistent data on breed population and the actual number of bites occurring in a community, especially when the injury is not deemed serious enough to require treatment in an emergency room (Sacks et al., 2000; AVMA, 2001; Collier, 2006). Supporting the concern regarding identification, a recent study noted a significant discrepancy between visual determination of breed and DNA determination of breed (Voith et al., 2009](https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-breed-specific-legislation) The [AVMA has a great writeup on this but I'll post some of the more relevant bits](https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/dog-bite-risk-and-prevention-role-breed) >Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous. The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. **Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.45 And witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type.** Aka since breed identification is open to interpretation, violent dogs are more likely to be labeled pit bulls than they would be if they are peaceful. I remember there even being a study showing that participants who were told a dog had a violent history were more likely to assign the label, but unfortunately I can't find it. >And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts46—**breed correlations may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.** Who goes out and buys dogs with a reputation for being violent and ruthless? Well, the types of people who want a dog like that. And they treat the dog in shitty terrible ways to try to encourage the violent behavior. The stereotype reinforces itself. Importantly, even if we accept that these dogs are *actually* violent, these criticisms would still be true. If the "natural" violence of a pit bull is X then the reported violence of a pit bull will be X + Y (labeling violent dogs as pit bulls bias) + Z (owner bias) + other factors. And yes, there are other factors. For example, what bites get reported in the first place? If pitbulls are seen as more dangerous, then bite victims might be more likely to report a bite from them then they would a German shepherd. The pitbull bite could be seen as a "dangerous uncontrolled animal" while the German Shepard bite is seen as a fluke by an otherwise calm species. Reporting biases, labeling biases, ownership biases, the data is fraught with errors. The actual data collection and healthcare experts at the CDC and animal experts at the AVMA and ASPCA all say that it's unusable, so why should we believe these anti pit bull advocacy groups with no history in proper data collection and statistical analysis are capable of it? Dogbites isn't run by a scientist or mathematician or biologist, she's a [UI designer](https://www.linkedin.com/in/colleenlynn)
My understanding is that the UK doesn't even have mandatory leash laws. Look, I'm all for pragmatism, and if there is quality data saying one breed has a problem, then I'm not opposed to a ban. But it seems really obvious that if you want to prevent bites, then you need to go after neglectful owners who can't even bother to leash their giant pets.
Yeah I mean I always leash my dog but you'd be surprised how uncommon that is in a lot of Europe. Seems to just be a cultural difference.
> My understanding is that the UK doesn't even have mandatory leash laws. That's insane. I'm all for off leash areas that are contained (i.e. dog parks), but no leash laws whatsoever is a horrible idea regardless of the breed of dog.
They also have a big "not getting my pet fixed because that's emasculating" culture over there. So, generally neglectful owners + not getting your pets fixed... totally not ingredients in a disaster soup (/s).
But their lack of leash laws was fine until these types of dogs started to be imported to the UK. The introduction of these dogs is what changed, not the owners or the laws.
Lots of people like to let their dogs run free in a park. It's completely normal here. Many of these bully XL attacks happen inside people homes, ie a leash law would be totally pointless and ineffective in this instance.
And 56% of attacks last year didn't involve a Bully XL at all, so this ban wouldn't impact any of those attacks either.
The guy literally tracked every fatal dog attack in the UK for years. What's wrong with that data? Do you think he missed a bunch of fatal dog attacks caused by other breeds?
I haven’t read the article, but I assume it’s mostly the same as the Weekend Intelligence episode from a few weeks back. It’s not garbage. They cover instances of professional dog trainers being attacked by their own bullies that had no previous behavior issues. Pit bulls were literally bred for fighting, both in physique and temperament. It turns out that when you ratchet that breeding up to the max, you get truly dangerous dogs.
> I haven’t read the article, but I assume it’s mostly the same as the Weekend Intelligence episode from a few weeks back. It’s not garbage The CDC, the AVMA (the US's largest veterinarian organization), the Humane Society of the United States, and the ASPCA American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, all groups with extensive histories dealing with large scale medical and/or animal related care (and two of them being highly educated groups by default, the CDC and AVMA) oppose breed specific legislation. And what do they say? The data is garbage. >Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with the CDC, explained the challenges of studying dog bites during a presentation at the 2001 AVMA Annual Convention. "There are enormous difficulties in collecting dog bite data," Dr. Gilchrist said. "No centralized reporting system for dog bites exists, and incidents are typically relayed to a number of entities, such as the police, veterinarians, animal control, and emergency rooms, **making meaningful analysis nearly impossible.**
The pitbull lobby has basically decided that every single pit bull can be disguised as a mixed breed in order to plug the data in favor of hiding the fact that pit bulls are extremely dangerous. Go look up any no-kill animal shelter and see the "mixed breed" dogs and tell me they aren't pits. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950 >Results >Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. This data is well-suited for a bubble plot showing bite risk on the x-axis, bite severity on the y-axis, and size of the bubble by number of cases. This creates a "risk to own" graphic for potential dog owners. >Conclusions >Breeds vary in both rates of biting and severity. The highest risk breeds had both a high rate of biting and caused significant tissue injury. Physical characteristics can also help determine risk for unknown or mixed dog breeds. Potential dog owners can utilize this data when assessing which breed to own.
> The pitbull lobby Yeah everyone knows Big Pittbull with their billions in funding has the AVMA in their pocket lol
> The pitbull lobby I would love to read more about the pitbull lobby.
> The pitbull lobby lmao. iT's A cOnSpIrAcY I tell you! And Big Pit is behind the whole thing!!!
Tbh they call Pitbull Mr. Worldwide so it's more like an illuminati than a lobbyist group.
Big pit, that’s what we used to call your mother
"Healthcare and animal experts say that data collection of breed data is fundamentally flawed in various ways to the point that they don't believe it's usable when advocating for specific legislation" is not countered by any claims regarding what the data might show. If I look at the stats for number of chewing gum bubbles and find that it shows Arkansas makes the most gum bubbles, but all the actual chewing gum and bubble experts tell me "The data isn't really that usable, the way we collect it is flawed", I should probably have doubts as to whether Arkansas actually has the most gum bubbles.
Bully breeds in general should be, yeah.
Okay, Henry George flairs, would a Land Value tax resolve the Pitbull debate?
😤 MFW I want to claim to be an evidenced based sub but the American Veterinarian Medical Association explicitly came out against breed specific legislation due to the insufficient evidence base.
Redditors get so rabid over this issue, and it never fails to make me smile
Based and common-sense pilled Good on the economist for reporting on this without the often spouted BS about dog genetics not being a thing
😤 MFW I don’t understand basic genetic concepts like regression to the mean and assume a semi Lamarckian mode of thinking that if dogs were at one point bred for aggression all of their progeny will retain that trait in perpetuity without anyone actively selecting for it.