Hacker News Reader

Comment by douglasisshiny | Hacker News Reader

unrelated note: As an owner and advocate for pitbulls, I think this analogy is inaccurate and perpetuates the stereotype that pitbulls are aggressive animals.

As a result of breeding, pitbulls are wonderful with people, despite their reputation. Even dog fighters would agree as a person generally stands in a dog fighting ring to break up the fight (and doesn't want to be attacked). It takes a great deal of "training" (aka abuse) to make a pitbull aggressive towards people.

Pitbulls are not always the best with other dogs, but it is something that can be remedied with an assertive owner.

tl;dr Pitbulls are loving, sweet dogs.

View on HN

Pitbulls are loving, sweet dogs.

That's just another broken stereotype. Pitbulls run the full spectrum; just like other dogs breeds. Statistically, they are more likely to attack people than average but it's hard to separate their owners from the breed it's self. IMO, the real problem is as a large breed the potential for harm is greater than smaller dogs and far to many people mistreat them.

That's a good point, although i believe it is natural for pitbulls to be well behaved (in our eyes), but your point is taken.

As far as pitbull biting stats: 1. Pitbull is not a breed; it's an umbrella term for six different breeds. 2. There are _a lot_ of pitbulls in the U.S.

Actually, pit bulls are less or equally likely to attack than most other common dogs, including the golden retriever. Advocates against them roll over this fact by saying that the more powerful jaws make it worse when it does happen. Note, I have two pretty awesome "pit bulls" - an American Staffordshire Terrier and an American Pitbull Terrier.

A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (42%).[24] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[25] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[26]

A review of the medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks.[31] Fatalities were most often reported when children were attacked, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_humans

In addition to the points I made below (pit bull isn't a breed, but an umbrella term for six different breeds, et al.), a few paragraphs under the portion you pasted on wikipedia:

Several studies determined that pit bull owners, and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix), are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study compared owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., pit bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked, or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions then did "low risk" dog owners.[39] A 2009 study[40] and a followup 2012 study generally supported these findings.[41]

I completely agree with what your saying. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a reasonable way to pre-screen dog owners as plenty of people in "high risk" groups are great pet owners and owning a dog can often have rather positive results. At the same time there are some truly horrible people out there.

PS: I never really know what else to call pit bull it's not really a "group" and the definition is rather vague, but repeating pit bull all the time is rather repetitive. Any suggestions?

It is unfortunate. You're right, logistically it's impossible to screen people. Technically you could do criminal background checks, but I don't know if animal rescues have the resources for that; or what the blow back would be. And even then, like you said, these people could be rehabilitated and just want a dog -- which in itself can be therapeutic. It's complex.

I call all of the pit bull breeds pit bulls (or pits or pibbles) despite the definition being vague. It'd be a bit awkward to walk around in public and say, "check out that Staffordshire bull terrier." I just think lumping all the breeds into one group when citing bite statistics is misleading.

> Actually, pit bulls are less or equally likely to attack than most other common dogs

You're really not entitled to your own facts, and this fact is false. All the data everywhere shows that pit bulls are always at the top of the "most likely to be involved in biting incidents" charts. Ontario, for example, has reduced dog bite incidents by about 25% by banning pit bulls from being kept as pets.

What you are failing to take into consideration is that the demographic that keep a pit or rot mix as a non-socialized and aggressive guard dog over represents the breed as a whole. Yes, a pit bull has a greater chance of inflicting serious harm if they attack, most of the ones that attack are the millions locked in a yard by your neighborhood drug dealer.

I just read through a couple reports, they include wonderful stories like the pit bull who knocked over an old lady and broke her hip as an attack.

Edit: To make an anecdotal, worthless point...I live in a really poor area of Portland. I walk through the neighborhood and on just about every block there is one house with a locked up pit bull behind a 4 foot chain link fence. These dogs are aggressive, abused and very well represent a danger to people.

Hah. Great argument. Especially when you consider that 'pit bulls' are not a breed, but an umbrella term for six breeds. So, yes, if you combine the bite statistics for six different breeds of dog (a few of which are very popular; all combined which make up about 7% of the dog population in the U.S.), the _six_ breeds will account for more biting incidents than any other _one_ dog. What a damning verdict.

This doesn't take into account any qualitative analysis either. For example, how many people buy a retriever or lab and train (aka, abuse) it to be aggressive towards everyone (i.e., a guard dog)?

Also, while voluntary, the American Temperament Test Society tests dogs in a number of scenarios for the overall temperament. Pit bull breeds do very well in these tests and have some of the highest sample sizes.

For example, page 1 (http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/#totals) lists the American Pit bull terrier and American Staffordshire terrier as ranking very highly and having 800+ subjects.

Totally off subject but I concur. As long as the owner is understanding of the breed and is confident in being the alpha dog, pits are great dogs. I have one as well as two cats and they all get along famously.

Still, I want my real estate agent to have the common mythological qualities of a pit, given my choice.

I didn't take it as "pitbulls are aggressive" but as pitbulls are tenacious. Pitbulls are one of the few breeds which exhibit the "bite-hold-shake" (like their ancestor the bulldog) and are thusly seen to be tenacious. Maybe just difference of inference.

Many breeds actually have this behavior. It's common in play.

Nearly every dog does "bite-hold-shake".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com