I am using the term to mean 'an increased propensity to display aggressive behaviours towards humans' which is the allegation that has been repeatedly directed at pit bulls (on this thread and elsewhere).



I confess I am skeptical. I'd be very interested to see the source for this data as it conflicts with what I have seen.

Maybe , its because you dont want to believe any evidence that contradicts what you believe.

I've taken it from various sources but will try to find some links which I will add in a minute.

I acknowledge that it is not completely consistent - e.g. the data for percentage of pitbulls was as at 2009 whereas the 'damage' data was from 1982-2006. It is therefore possible that the number of pitbulls decreased significantly over that period, but it was the closest I could come to trying to compare. If you have other data, I'd be interested in seeing it.

No. It would be for the reasons I gave.

If you are appealing to 'argument from authority' then I would point out that more countries have not banned pit bulls than have. Are they all numpties?

That different countries have vastly different ideas about which dogs (if any) should be banned is a clue that many have got things wrong.


I'll let you know when I see it. Much as I hold great esteem for Hali she has not yet offered evidence.

Figures on dog attacks (it has already been referred to in the earlier posts on this thread)
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Atta...%20Clifton.pdf

I think there is some very interesting info in this - for instance this comment
'Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking
seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.

And for the percentage of pitbulls:-
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2009/08...-that-pit.html

And the bit about the two thirds of attacks are by dogs showing no previous signs of aggression (though now that I go back to this, this seems to be across all dog attacks, not just the pitbulls. It would be interesting to get the figures for just the pitbulls.

"According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question."
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

And from a judicial review of Denver's pitbull ordinance:

http://www.californiapolicechiefs.or..._ordinance.pdf

“It cannot be proven that pit bull dogs bite more than other dogs. However, there is credible evidence that pit bull dog attacks are more severe and more likely to result in fatalities.”
"The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling, as the trial court found that pit bull attacks, unlike attacks by other dogs, are more severe, and are more likely to result in fatalities. The trial court also found that pit bulls tend to
be stronger than other dogs, often give no warning signals before attacking, and are less willing than other dogs to retreat from an attack, even when they are in considerable pain."

Considering many Countries in the world have little to no animal rights, comparing those who have not banned them to those who have will have little relevance.

Your argument (from what you write ) is those countries who have banned pits are "misguided" (numpties, my words) which I find rather arrogant of you, maybe they should consult you for your expertize regarding what will works for them and what will not.

In the Pitbull Placebo, Karen Delise did some follow-ups on dogs stated to be "family pets" who had "never been aggressive before" and found that in many of the cases she looked at, the dogs were anything but family pets.

In one case, the dogs were left alone to starve in the basement. Upon autopsy they found no food in their stomach, but instead things like rubber bands and the like.

In other cases, the dogs had been chained outside and got loose.

The most dangerous dogs in the world? Chained dogs. Hands down.

Would agree wholeheartedly with that, and would go as far to say that there are a huge proportion of chained pitbulls in US down to the fact they seem to get them for protecting the house etc... The amount of frustration of that animal must be horrendous.

In italy they also chain dogs permanently to protect the chickens etc from foxes etc.( or they certainly did when I was growing up)
Some just could not be approached by anyone other than the owner as they would bite. Most are crossbreeds but the frustration and protection factor woudl just kick in.

Did she give statistics as to how many of the 'many' cases would be classed as abused rather than real family pets?

I do agree that chaining a dog could well increase aggression, but is there any evidence to show that a far higher proportion of pitbulls are chained than other breeds? The point I'm making is that if the proportions of large dogs chained are about the same, it still wouldn't explain the high figures for severe attacks by pitbulls.

But if, as a breed, pitbulls really are people friendly, why has the pitbull been so popular for this purpose? Surely a guarding breed would be a better choice? What is it about pitbulls that make people want to use them as guard dogs?

Image...it is all about the image. They look "hard" and macho.