Dog breed bans are about human prejudice — not the dogs
vox.com
Highlights: In a bizarre turn of events last month, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that he would ban American XL bullies, a type of pit bull-shaped dog that had recently been implicated in a number of violent and sometimes deadly attacks.
XL bullies are perceived to be dangerous — but is that really rooted in reality?
You are viewing a single comment
Yeah frankly the statistics are pretty conclusive. You can argue about bad owners all you'd like, and theres probably at least some truth there (if you're an asshole who wants a violent dog, you're of course going to choose a breed with a reputation for violence), but it's clear to any unbiased observer that pit bulls have a high tendency towards violence.
No one is advocating that we round up all the pit bulls and euthenize them (no sane person anyways), but that we stop breeding new ones. Frankly there needs to be a lot more regulation on dog breeding, besides violent breeds, there's no reason we should be breeding more (as an example) pugs, who are doomed to spend their whole lives suffocating just because some people like their squashed faces
I'm not trying to nitpick and start an argument with you but the guy you're replying to has conflated two very different things. Likelihood to bite and ability to damage with bite. You are most likely to be bitten by a Labrador retriever. You are most likely to be fucked up by a Pitbull. I will not deny that pit bulls have the ability to fuck you up. Just like I won't deny the ability of a German Shepherd to rip a fist-sized chunk out of your leg.
Furthermore he is pretending to quote with a sense of authority however reading his own linked article will disprove his claim. The number one identified breed with the ability to cause damage was "unidentified". The article claims the number two breed was "Pit Bull" which is not a singular breed and encompasses many subreads. The third was "mixed" fourth was German Shepherd.
I have owned many pits over the years. We currently own one that is 25 percent husky and 75 percent pitt that looks nothing like a pit he came out looking like a hound everybody loves him always asked to come up and pet. At the same time they are afraid and scared of our smaller mutt dog with a blocky head and call it a pit, but he's just a mix of retrekver shepherd and terrier.
I do alot of work and give a fair amount of donations to a animal rescue facility that fits thru about 400 dogs per year. Pit bulls have without question been the most likely to be aggressive out of all the dogs that file thru. We get many other aggressive dogs but the pits are the only ones that stand out.
This may be due to their strength or due to the above average likelihood of them being raised in aggressive environments. There are also nice pits but regardless I am completely against breeding them and more so, there is no logical argument to be made breed them.
I wonder if it could be do to unconscious racial bias? I'm aware of research that shows people disproportionately associate pitbull ownership with black culture, and of research that shows white and black toddlers each view black toddlers as inferior.
There's definitely a selection bias: you work at a place that handles neglected, abused, or unwanted dogs, and bully dogs are very popular. The selection of dogs you see doesn't include those that already live in forever homes, where they will die of old age without ever being anything but a loyal and trusted family member. Also, I bet that if you tested the DNA of 50 dogs you visually identified as being pitbulls, maybe half of them are not actually pitbulls.
I find this rhetoric extremely dangerous. This is what eugenicists say. It's what the most delusional racists say.
I didn't read the article the commenter linked, just OPs link, and it's the same thing that happens with many different "let's ban this arguments." People get swept up and hyped on common sentiment fear, and find any "article" that supports their viewpoint, because their opinion is now a popular opinion, therefore they're right.
I do think that there are some breeds where caution is needed, but much of that ties back into people having certain breeds that aren't right for them. Pits are high energy dogs that require a lot of exercise, and when they don't get that exercise, they do dumb shit. Similarly, a 125 pound person probably shouldn't be walking a 100 pound dog of any breed, as an owner needs to be able to control their animal if something happens.
I have a Staffador (Staffordshire mixed with chocolate lab). She is extremely high energy, can jump a good 4' in the air, and loves to play bite/wrestle. It's been a long road getting her jumping and aggressive behavior under control, but you're more likely to get properly bit by our plotthound with PTSD.
From the article:
"Mixed breeds" are just barely behind pit bulls. That's hardly conclusive.
"mixed breeds" just means any dog that isn't purebred, which is the vast majority of dogs, so it doesn't say much that they account for a lot of attacks
Great, so why isn't there a huge outcry about mixed breed dogs? I mean, oh my god, they're essentially as dangerous as pit bulls.
Because "mixed breed" dogs aren't a breed? That's my whole point.
What you're arguing is basically equivalent to this "psychopaths account for 26% of murderers, closely followed by people with brown eyes at 25%, why aren't we doing anything about the brown eyed menace!"
Lumping all mixed breed dogs just inflates the numbers, because - again - the vast majority of dogs are mixed breed.
Put another way, because I can tell you're having a hard time grasping this - mixed breed dogs account for 53% of all dogs in the US according to the AKC. Pit bulls account for just a hair under 6% (5.8, if you want the specifics). That means according to the stats in the article, any given pit bull is 10x more likely to bite than any given mixed breed dog.
Get it?
“Pit bull” isn’t a breed either.
American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed. It’s one of several collective breeds that people typically refer to when they use pit bull. The others being American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and sometimes the American Bulldog.
That term is also often used for mixed dogs that may have some amount of one of those breeds or that shares physical characteristics with one of those breeds, usually head and/or body shape.
Anecdotally, I have a neighbor whose neighbor on the other side called the police on him for having a “dangerous breed” dog. They told the police he had a pit bull. It was a boxer.
That's a fair point, but "pit bull" being comprised of several sub-breeds isn't even kind of the same sort of umbrella as "literally every dog that isn't a pure bred"
And your neighbor being an idiot really doesn't have any relevance on the discussion
They are not sub-breeds, they are breeds, and I never said it was the same. I simply pointed out that pit bull is not itself a breed. It would be closer to a classification than a breed.
Comparing and banning mixed breed dogs makes as much sense as comparing and banning pit bulls if you don’t actually define what breeds are intended by using “pit bull”. That’s why many statutes in the US specify breeds in the legislation.
Language is important, especially when you’re talking about legislation used to restrict or ban something. Particularly if your primary determinant is visual appearance since, unless the animal is a registered purebred or DNA tested, you’re relying on what the dog looks like.
I used my neighbors situation as an example of how “pit bull” is not a proper identifier by itself.
I don't disagree that specific language will need to be used when drafting laws with regards to what breeds (or what traits of which breeds) you'll be regulating the breeding of. Of course it would have to, otherwise any such law is unenforceable - not sure what in my previous comments would make you think otherwise.
In an online discussion though (which is to say, not a court room) I'd argue that you're more derailing the discussion by getting worked up over terminology as opposed to the actual issue.
Do you take issue with how the study were discussing, or the AKC define "pit bull"? Did you even read either study/census to see how they did so before just going "oh they aren't even defining it right so their data is nil". Or did you just decide that your neighbor being an idiot meant the entire scientific community was too?
I took issue with this because pit bull isn’t a breed either. You used a poor word choice, had it pointed out to you and now you’re getting defensive.
And for some reason you’re hung up on the neighbor anecdote.
You know what makes me think you don’t value the importance of language? Getting rudely defensive about mixed breeds it being a breed but using pit bull like it is.
I’m derailing the discussion? The topic is about dog breed bans and you’re using terminology that doesn’t refer to a dog breed.
I was trying to help you understand because it’s a common mistake but now it seems like you just want to be a dick.
I maintain that there is a world of difference between the grouping of breeds commonly referred to as Pitbull and the grouping of literally every single dog that isn't a purebred. You are correct that "Pitbull" doesn't necessarily refer to a specific breed, and I concede that point, I don't however see how that at all negates my point that targeted regulation of the breeding of dangerous, and cruel (see the Pug) breeds is a good practice, let the people who are far more knowledgeable about canine biology than either of us draw the specific lines of how and when that threshold is passed.
My frustration is that you're getting hung up on terminology while bypassing the actual points being made. I acknowledge (again ,because I already did so in my last comment) that when drafting actual legal documents, precise and correct language will be very important. For internet disucssions, a highly common, well understood shorthand for a group of breeds seems perfectly sufficient.
And if your core point is that perfectly docile breeds might be getting lumped in the "pit bull" category on these dog bite studies, let's run some hypothetical numbers on that. Let's say that half of the dogs reported as pitbulls are not actually belonging to any of the breeds known to have a tendency towards violence - because hey, as you point out, some people are stupid and will completely misreport dog breeds. That still makes them 5x more likely to bite than a mixed dog (per the math in my previous comment). Let's say only 20% of the reports accurately describe the attacking dog as a pitbull. Frankly, that's a ludicrously low assertion for the reporting accuracy, but hey - let's be generous. That still makes them 2x more likely to bite than a mixed dog.
If any of those estimates are the case it certainly raises questions about the safety of German shepards, but that's not really a surprise to anyone who knows the breed. Police and military all over the world don't use them as attack dogs for no reason.
I'm specifically talking about pitbulls, because that's what this thread is about, but I don't have anything against pitbulls specifically - I just think that we should be regulating the breeding of dogs more closely to prevent dangerous or cruel breeds from proliferating unchecked. You're welcome to disagree, but unless you have some study to disprove my core point here, I don't see you changing my mind on this point here anytime soon, and I agree with you that this conversation has gone sour, so I'm signing off.
I’m not reading your wall of text. You want to argue so badly you’re fabricating some stance I have on the issue of banning breeds.
The only issue I took was you telling someone mixed breeds aren’t a breed while you also are not referring to a breed.
That’s it. Go back and read my first reply to you. I corrected you, explained the correction, and added an anecdotal experience about “pit bull” being used to describe a dog of Boxer breed.
Might be time for an internet break.
Aight bud, have a good night lol
"Reported" is the key term. In over half of all dog injuries, the breed is not reported.
The statistics aren't conclusive at all.
In over half of dog related injuries the breed is not reporter.
Add to that, even vet staff cannot visually identify dog breed with any level of accuracy.
And when you talk about banning dog breeds, yes you are talking about rounding them up in euthanizing them. Period.
I'm absolutely not. I'm advocating restrictions on breeders, not owners. No one should have their dog taken away, and pit bulls in shelters should still be adoptable in my view. I just don't believe we should be deliberately breeding more dogs with known issues, whether it's issues with their own health (like pugs) or issues with aggression.
Please don't presume to tell me what I'm advocating.
You are though.
You realize dogs have all the equipment to breed without any human interaction right?
So pitbulls will still breed even if you tell people not to do it.
How do you come up with pitbulls having health and aggression issues? In over half of all dog bite cases, the breed is unknown. It's not anyone's job to count dog bites by breed, so anyone purporting to have done so is basically lying.
I'm not, reread my previous comment. Last time I'm going to say this before I just block you without giving you the courtesy of even replying, stop deciding for me what I'm advocating, I've laid out the strategy I'd like to see in my previous comment, I'm advocating for absolutely no action beyond that.
Yes, of course - do you actually believe this is where a majority of pitbulls come from though? No moral strategy will completely eliminate the breed, but restricting breeders will mean that your average person can't get one, which means your average Joe/Jane is far less likely to run into them on the street.
I never said they have health issues (maybe they do, I'm not aware of it though) - When I talk about breeds with health issues, I'm referring to breeds like Pugs that live their whole lives in discomfort because of how much we fucked up their physiology.
True, that's why we only look at the cases where the breed is known for these discussions, without making any assumptions about the dogs whose breed is unknown.
I guess true? In that people don't get paid, they do however report breed information as part of the reporting of the dog bite. And as I've said in other comments in this thread, I'm entirely sure that there is a margin of error in the reporting of breeds for dog bites. However, even if you assume as much as a 5x overreporting for pitbulls, that still puts at about double the chance of an individual pitbull biting someone as opposed to a mixed breed dog.
Ah, the ole "I don't like it, so it must be made up", very scientific.
They don't report the breed in over half of all dog bite cases. You're kidding yourself that the resultant data isn't worthless. Statistically, there could be another breed of dog you've never heard of causing over half of dog related njuries.
You're response is:
Well you may not but "we" do, and we know relying on something that is so underreported, as well as misreported, is not rational. Seems like you realize the data is worthless but you want to ban pitbulls so badly you don't care. That makes me think that for you it's about something more than public safety.
Yeah, it's been clear from your very first comment that you feel this way lol - you're welcome to disagree with me, but I've already laid out my thoughts on the matter multiple times. Unless you have anything new to add, instead of just repeating the same fallacies about the data being "worthless", then I don't see any value in continuing to talk in circles