Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.
A dog is a dog, and they all have some serious ability to do harm in the face of a weaker opponent like children or the elderly, there needs to be laws to make the owners liable for any damage caused and make them get time for it. that way owner will be more responsible. or discourage them from getting dogs in the first place
First UK bans guns, then knives, now big dogs… what are you supposed to protect yourself with?
I’m just curious, when the UK banned pit bulls, did the government just go around and round up everyone’s suddenly illegal dogs and put them all down?
Some of them, yes. They didn’t go hunting them but any complaints or incidents or they find one when investigating some other crime then you can be sure your pitbull would be taken away and destroyed.
I don’t think owners got prosecuted or anything as long as the dog was born before the ban, just the dog taken away. Breeders that continued selling them certainly did get prosecuted though.
Wait, like if a neighbor had a problem with you or something they could just report you have a pit bull and the government would then come and take your pet and kill it?!!?
I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.
No, not like that. A workmate had a staffy with longer than usual legs. For some reason the neighbours thought it was a pitbull so reported her. Police came, checked the garden was secure, gave some recommendations (like muzzle the animal in public - which she complied with) and left it at that.
It wasnt illegal to own them, it was illegal to buy them after the cutoff date, or to breed new dogs. The police got new powers but couldnt just take the dog without finding actual problems (to protect dog owners and give some fairness).
I can see an argument for the proposition that maybe we don’t need dogs that are big and powerful enough to injure or kill people.
But, I take claims about how a breed “is gentle” with an entire ocean of salt- individual dogs might be calm and well-trained or socialized, it’s the ones churned out of puppy mills to be sold at top dollar to shitty people who want a tough, scary dog that seem to be sketchy.
I’ve been around lots of well-adjusted big dogs that are just big hunks of love and slobbery affection, but really I hate seeing stories about how some dog that “is a good boy” mauled a child and if I had my druthers, dog owners would be required to carry liability insurance proportionate to the dog’s size or bite force or some factor correlating to its breed, and to the dog owner’s income or wealth. Oh, that would make big, dangerous dogs too expensive to own? Maybe they should be.
deleted by creator
Yeah that study probably relied on faulty data. Most dog bite data just the person what the breed was.
Did tou know putbull is not 1 breed but 3 different ones.
Most people cant reliably tell an american pitbul from other breeds in a line up.
Did you know that all of the breeds that are identified by the name “pit bull” rate high in aggression? And that the same studies that pitbull afficianados cite for “you can’t tell a breed by appearance” also support the idea that when people call a dog a “pit bull” based on morphology alone, that the dog stands a very high chance of having decended from one of the several breeds identified as a pit bull?
Not in the study i reaf. They lined pure American pitbull and some pitbull mutts and dogs with no pitbull. They only to reliably guees who was the pitbull, even counting the mutt as pb, was if the dog was showing teeth.
Actually, “pitbulls” are now well over a dozen different breeds people just randomly consider “pitbulls”
If it’s a stocky mutt with short hair . It’s a pitbull!
About 15 years ago I volunteered with a pitbull rescue, then did a bunch of research on pitbull attacks in grad school. The problem then was that most statistics like this were unreliable once you saw what they labeled a pitbull. In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull. I don’t know if things have changed, never really looked into it since then, but I’m still a bit wary of stats like this without knowing their data is accurate.
My little dog doesn’t have an ounce of pitbull in her. Her mom was a border collie/lab mix, and the Father was the Neighbor’s boston terrier/english pointer mix. The only thing remotely pitbull like about her is her underbite. That said, I’ve lost count of the times somebody at the dog park, usually someone with a little ankle biter dog of the teacup persuasion, has gotten uppity about me having a “pitbull” off leash. People are dumb.
Every breed you listed besides lab are nippers but are not notorious maulers. Sorry your little nipper is getting lumped in with the murder muffins.
In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull.
Seems like an issue specific to wherever you went to school.
Most rational people would immediately draw clear separations between mutts and pitbulls or pitbull mixes.
I don’t think this comment is indicative of the problem at all.
Curious where you went to school though, lol. Might want to get a refund for that degree.
Most rational people would, but it was an indicator that people who report dog bites did not know the difference.
And I’m not sure what my school had to do with it. At that time I was sourcing data from external sources, using data reported on police reports or by other organizations. Someone else commenting referenced the breed specific legislation advocacy group that was a source for some of that data.
My comment might not have been clear, I was criticising the data I was finding.
The studies I’ve seen that people cite to say “you can’t identify a breed by looking at it” usually are playing a semantic game - and what often is not emphasized is that the same research shows that when people identify a dog as a “pit bull,” that those people are quite accurate in identifying–by morphology alone–the presence of genetics from one of the several aggressive breeds people call “pit bulls.” And that the morphology is positively correlated with higher aggression.
I remember when climate change deniers were not sure about the science either…
were?
Actually it’s more likely a pitt is labeled incorrectly like a lab etc to get them adopted to people too ignorant to know better. So that’s gonna invalidate that statement.
It doesn’t help that a lot of strays/rescues have a good chunk of pit bull blood in them.
Both of my dogs are rescues from programs in the southern US. One of them certainly seems to have some pit in him…beautiful brindle coat, block head, incredibly strong jaw, stocky-muscular build. He’s dumb as a bag of rocks but incredibly loyal and affectionate. Because of the stigma around pits, though, I’m afraid to get him DNA tested.
And it’s probably worse if you do rate by breed.
But I suspect that it’s mostly due to a combination of breed and neglect/non-training. The kind of people who want a pit bull in particular, and the kind of people who just chain up their dog outside and never train or socialize it, probably have significant overlap.
Source?
deleted by creator
This site is an advocacy group for breed specific legislation.
And it’s all very well cited. Makes sense why an advocacy group exists for this
The problem is that an advisory group trying to push legislation is much more likely to cherry pick and misrepresent their citations.
Okay but what is the motive for them to do this. You are claiming malice but you aren’t providing a motive for said malice
Not exactly. Studies on this are hard to accurately. In breif, people suck at id breeds, and mort studoes only ask the peraon what breed bit you
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N7F4OfDSvPU&pp=ygUYcmViZWNjYSB3YXRzb24gZG9nIGJyZWVk
Thanks for telling me the same thing people have been parroting for an eternity. Check out Occam’s razor
What wrong with the counter studies
It’s not well cited because in over half of dog injuries the breed is unknown.
Also, two thirds of dogs identified as pitbulls by veterinarian staff have zero pitbull DNA.
The National Rifle Association will offer a very well cited claim that strict gun laws increase violent crime. The Violence Policy Center will offer a very well cited claim that the opposite is true. Reality is likely more nuanced.
The hole in dog breed bite statistics is usually accurate identification of the breed.
Maybe I’m missing something, what does this advocacy group stand to benefit from banning pitbulls? The NRA is backed by weapons manufacturers. This seems to be people who actually see a problem and are taking actions to help protect people.
They are pushing arguments in favor of eugenics and genocide and have coopted dog-related injuries to push lies about history and genetic science.
Just go on their site and wherever they mention pitbulls, replace it with “Jews” and you really start to get the flavor of their bullshit.
People often hold strong beliefs that are not related to personal gain nor particularly rational. I don’t think their intent is nefarious, but I think it’s likely mistaken.
Wrong. You’re misrepresenting the stats. You’re leaving out the fact that in over half of all dog bites the breed is unknown.
Also, in studies where vet personnel are asked to visually identify the breed of dog, they are wrong two out of three times. So if vet personnel can’t even do it, dog bite victims, police reports, and hospital reports, from where these statistics on dog bites are obtained, are definitely not getting right.
The truth is that we have absolutely zero legitimate idea what dogs are causing injuries. Even if the numbers on pitbulls were accurate, the breed is unreported in more than half of cases, which statistically speaking means there could be another breed of dog that you’ve never even heard of that’s responsible for more than half of all bites.
The other issue for me is the inherent racism by those who advocate for these policies. In every conversation, it eventually devolves to the proponent of breed bans doing one of two things: admitting that they are targeting certain types of people, not breeds, and arguments that rely on false assertions of history, genetic and behavioral science, that are identical to those put forth by eugenicists. The easy example is the false assertions that pitbulls were “bred for fighting.”
They were bred for hunting and loyalty to their families and children. The guy to originally bred them wrote several books which you can read on Google Books and discusses at length their loyalty to people and kids as a primary characteristics, moreso than any violence. It was their strength and determination that made them useful for hunting, not aggression.
They were used only for dog fighting decades after the big game hunting they were bred to do was banned, and even then, dogs that showed aggression to humans were banned from the “sport” if not outright euthanized.
The studies that you would cite to support your “you can’t tell a breed by its look” also tend to show that people are quite accurate at identifying that one of the many breeds that are called pit bulls are present in a particular dog. in other words, they can’t accurately say “this is a pure bred Staffordshire Terrier” but they can say, “this is a pit bull” and they’re correct, unless you’re playing stupid semantic games.
I don’t see where the study says that.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109002331500310X
That study seems to state a conclusion precisely the opposite of what the experimental results were. Based on a small sample set, there’s a high degree of match, far more accurate than random chance, between the observations and the genetic findings.
And yet still wrong two thirds of the time.
Of the 25 dogs identified as pit bull-type dogs by breed signature, 12 were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of admission to the shelter (prior to the study visit), including five labeled American Staffordshire terrier mix, four pit bull mix, two pit bull, and one American Staffordshire terrier. During the study, 20/25 dogs were identified by at least one of the four staff assessors as pit bull-type dogs, and five were not identified as pit bull-type dogs by any of the assessors. …
Of the 95 dogs (79%) that lacked breed signatures for pit bull heritage breeds, six (6%) were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of shelter admission, and 36 (38%) were identified as pit bull-type dogs by at least one shelter staff assessor at the time of the study visit
So, at intake, 18 dogs were identified as pit bulls but only 2/3rds were at least 12% pit bull.
During the study, 56 dogs were identified as being pit bulls, but only about 1/3rd were in fact at least 12% pit bull.
This is the classic ‘base rate fallacy’. The false positive rate isn’t that high, and the false negative rate isn’t that high either. But because the true positive rate is pretty low, the ratio of true positives to false positives is much worse than you’d intuitively think.
Tests for rare diseases and attempts to behaviorally profile terrorists at airports runs into the same problem. Sometimes, a 99.9% accurate test just moves you from searching for a needle on a farm to a needle in only a single haystack.
deleted by creator
Cultural question to Brits as this happened in UK. Do people care if their dog attacks someone or is highly agressive to humans in UK?
By what I’ve heard from my friends, dog owners often put the blame on attacked/harassed passers-by, they don’t feel accountable for their wrongdoings (i.e. not using leash and not paying attention to where their dog is and what is it doing).
On no, my sweet velvet hippo wouldn’t hurt a fly! Says the pitbull owner as it eats what is left of grandma.
Hippos are extremely dangerous and viscious.
Edit: different terminology… but bullyism is a thing so I’m gonna leave it up.
Bullies are a genetic anomaly that aren’t just pitbulls. For example, Wendy is a somewhat famous bully whippet:
Most responsible breeders don’t allow for pairings that would create it. Mostly because if they get too excited they have heart attacks- their heart can’t keep up.
It should be banned, but not because it makes dogs more violent than they otherwise would be.
Basically it comes from over breeding for muscle mass. It crops up in racing breeds mostly- whippets and greyhounds. But also, apparently, in beef cattle:
More info on Wendy and bully whippet mutation for those curious
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/strongest-dog-in-the-world/
Ugh, please go back to Reddit with that attitude
“Go back to Reddit” is the cringiest thing you can say on Lemmy.
On a public forum? You can kiss my ass.
deleted by creator
The attitude of a joke?
Thank God they’re focusing on the worst hardships that are being inflicted on the British people.
When the UK has had such a massive increase in KSI rates they have to act. As Gregorum said they can deal with more than one issue, even feckless fucks like ours.
if governments weren’t capable of doing more than one thing at a time, all of global civilization would collapse.
Well they’re not doing much about the climate and it feels like global civilization is collapsing, so…
That is not as strong an argument as it used to be in 2023
Neither is “but what about this?”
Its called “Whataboutism” now aint it?
British govt seems to have stagnated for the last 70 or so years.
The British government isn’t capable of doing any things any of the time. Not to add that while hundreds of refugees are dying trying to cross the channel, Suella bravermen (our home secretary) instead of rescuing, supporting and letting them in she’s complaining about dogs?? The point is that she of all people has bigger things she should be worrying about.
As Home Secretary this issues is EXACTLY part of her job! She has the power and finances to do both. Lets not assume she should give up on her other duties because of the boats, dont be conned.
What obligation does the UK have to rescue and take in people trying to illegally enter the country? Seems like a risk people have assumed for themselves and that helping them will only encourage more to try.
But it’s not illegal??? It’s international law that you have to take in any refugees seeking asylum and that applies to the uk as well. The uk is breaking international law and that had been certified multiple times by bodies like the echr and UN.
You’re right. I didn’t realize that the international law of aiding people in distress at sea includes those who intentionally create the risk for themselves in order to provoke rescue. But it does.
The o ly reason they have to create intentional risk is because they aren’t let past at the border like they should be.
Where are they disembarking from? France? EDIT: The right to cherry-pick the country one seeks asylum in is not clearly established in international law.
I mean that picture wasn’t chosen intentionally…
Reality is pitties are a protection breed like GSDs, Rotties, dobermans.
The main difference is those breeds are expensive. Pits have become the poster child for uncontrolled breeding among people who often specifically raise them to be aggressive. They are probably by FAR the most populous breed in cities in the US. It’s easy to have the most dog attacks when you’re the most popular bread.
I honestly don’t think most pits are any more dangerous than any large bread. And banning pits isn’t going to help the issue. Which is the people raising them to be aggressive and breeding them uncontrollably. They’ll just switch to another breed.
Shhhh, people would prefer to be emotional about this topic and base their views on anecdotes and media fearmongering. Please take your reason and logic elsewhere.
This story is about the UK not the US. Pitbulls have been banned in the UK since 1991. There are not many pitbulls in the UK. Although the American XL Bully is closely related to the pitbull, it is not currently banned, but that may soon change.
They are probably by FAR the most populous breed in cities in the US.
I’d love to know what your source for this information is.
Open the website for any city shelter. Get back to me.
Knowing full well I’m going to get trounced for not having “facts” the reality is there are no statistics. Even the shelters themselves refuse to keep track because of the stigma involved for pits. They use terms like “mixed breed” and “unknown”. I can say 90% of the dogs in my local city shelters are all at least a fair amount of one of the Pit breeds. As a long time involved member of the dog rescue community.
“It’s not a pitbull until it bites someone” could be a unwritten rule.
The fact that pit bulls have more difficulty than other breeds in finding a home doesn’t really work in your favor lol
I’m kind of surpised these pests weren’t banned in the UK, yet. The usually love banning stuff.
You seem like a pest, let’s ban you.
I’ll let my lazy tub of lard know that she’s a “lethal danger” next time she waddles over to a new visitor shes never met and lays down with her head in their lap
I’ll let the dead kids know your dog is harmless.
Their dog hasn’t killed anyone, what’re you talking about?
That’s the equivalent of me blaming you for every murder ever committed by another human being.
Them telling me their dog is harmless is fucking meaningless, what’re you talking about?
That’s the equivalent of me telling people that no human would ever murder because I know this one guy that’s never murdered.
It’s the equivalent of you telling me that a specific person you know personally would never kill anyone.
Telling me that your mom, for example, would never hurt anyone, isn’t a crazy meaningless statement to make. You probably know your mom pretty well.
If the other commenter said “no dog would ever hurt anyone” then yeah, you’d be right. But that’s not what they said.
lmao, my mum wasn’t bred for violence, bro, gtfo. I’m glad my country keeps dangerous dogs out of peoples’ hands.
Nature vs nurture my friend - we have no idea how much of that breeding actually affects their psychology. This has been debated for god only knows how long.
Some slaves were also bred for violence. So, by your own logic, we should ban all of their ancestors as well right?
Humans are not fucking dogs you degenerate cunt. Why do pointers point without being taught? Why do herding dogs herd? Millennia of selective breeding with an animal that is known for having highly adaptable genetics. Fuck right off.
Lol were they? Because I severely doubt they realized that humans aren’t anywhere near as primitive as a dog and yoy can’t just breed violence into a human like that. It takes generations of foxes to be bred to be docile, it would take 100 years or so to get any wanted result in a human.
Oh you sweet summer child you sweet and innocent summer child you have absolutely no idea do you. I guarantee you your mother was just as you were just as I was. We murdered every single other hominid. We butchered the Dezavonians and the Neanderthals. Then we committed to several hundred thousand years of warfare against the last remaining hominid, other homosapiens. We are the violence monkeys. As far as I’m aware we have only seen humans and certain other great apes commit to sustained generational warfare. Just because we stand up walk around and put on clothes and talk to each other doesn’t mean we’re not vilant unpredictable animals. It doesn’t mean we’ve lost a capacity for violence far exceeding any dogs ability.
You sound like you make your livelihood off the blood of those dumb enough to buy the dogs you’ve immorally bred.
Is this a copypasta?
All humans are one species. We have no breeds. Now if the government genetically modified some humans to indiscriminately murder for no reason then you could blame that “breed” of humans, yes.
Unironically a racist dog whistle…
I don’t write off a whole breed, but I will say that my niece got her face seriously ripped up by a pit bull, and I have a friend who raised a pit bull from a puppy, devoted thousands of dollars and professional hours into her training and socialization, and she still bit someone simply for entering her house. I am leery of the breed.
I’ve spent a decent amount of time around about a dozen pit bulls and never saw/heard of any issues with any of them. All but 1 were very sweet dogs and even he wasn’t being aggressive beyond making it clear that I was not to enter the property (growling and barking same as many other dogs would do) when we first met. After his owner showed up and we got acquainted with each other he was fine too. On the other hand I’ve been bitten by half the dachshunds I’ve met.
On the flip side of the argument, I have a pit mix and she’s the sweetest thing in the world. Never has bitten anything other than a toy, and she doesn’t even bark unless she gets the zoomies while playing. She’s been great with my 2 year old nephew, too. Got her from the shelter when she was about a year and a half old. She’s 50% pit, so I feel like if it was genetic she’d be way more aggressive.
Obligatory dog pic:
The amount of lack of self awareness in this post…
My gun never misfires. Don’t ban guns from kindergartens.
posted on an article where a kid accidentally gets shot
Yet.
She has not bitten anyone yet. She might never. Or she might suddenly lose it and kill a child. That’s not something that ever happens in breeds like labs.
She’s sweet to you because people who breed and train dogs to kill for entertainment have no trouble killing any dog that pisses them off.
I think you should follow that last sentence with a description of why that matters. I know by inference, but some may miss your point that by “killing any dog that pisses them off” they were selectively breeding for obedience to the alpha to the exclusion of all else. And then maybe extrapolate on how that trait translates into fierce loyalt to one individual which makes everything else a potential target for attack.
You’re correct. Thanks for the clarification.
Uh that absolutely does happen with labs. It can happen with any breed. I’ve volunteered in rescue for years, and when I was working at a shelter, I interacted with hundreds of dogs, and the only time I was ever truly scared was with one particular lab. I don’t hold it against the breed as a whole, because it was his issue, but people need to be aware that any dog can bite and take proper precautions.
The lab should have been put down as well.
I think he may have been - he didn’t bite me, but when multiple volunteers refused to take him out because his body language read imminent attack, they pulled him for further behavioral evaluation. I don’t know what happened, but he wasn’t cleared in the time I was there. I’m not even sure why he was on the adoption floor to start with.
deleted by creator
That’s a dangerous way to think. There was a story about a golden retriever killing a baby in its carrier a few years back. The family said the dog had always been sweet and friendly, and the infant was too small to have done something like pull a tail or poke an eye.
I love dogs, I can’t imagine living without at least one and working with others, but way too many people assume that having a “safe” breed means nothing will happen. The vast majority of the time, everything is ok, but every now and then, a friendly dog bites someone in the face.
Big difference: mix
It’ll rip your face off, while looking cute!
What’s there to be leery about? These dog breeds were bred for one thing and it sure wasn’t to be the perfect family dog.
Well no, that’s where you’re wrong. Human aggression was a trait that was absolutely bred out of these dogs.
Please go read up on how the American fighting pitbull dog was created, managed, trained, etc. Before throwing out bs online.
Well I did and it literally states in the first paragraph of the history of Pit Bulls on Wikipedia:
The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting
So I feel, idk, that you got some reading to do…
Oh how cute, you read a paragraph on Wikipedia…
Well what fucking sources do you have lmao?
Well I’ll just start with a top search result when looking for their history…
https://pitbulls.org/article/brief-history-american-pit-bull-terrier
I have owned and read about these dogs for decades, I don’t have nor am I going to go find all of the sources I’ve read over that time. I can tell you that you are incorrect in your assumption about the breed, as are virtually every other person who hates these dogs.
People like you are historically not worth talking to, you will deny any sources or information that I provide because you have already made your mind up about the breed.
I’ll leave you with this: this breed was created by humans, is in a constant state of misery because of humans, and is persecuted by humans because of human behavior.
These dogs are not at fault. But ignorance is rife with folks like yourself. I hope you actually put effort into learning their history but I know you won’t.
So no sources, nothing, what a pointless discussion.
Everyone I know who has been bit by a dog it was either a pitbull, pit mix, or chihuahua. And I’m not exactly worried about the severity of a chihuahua bite.
I was bitten by an English bull terrier puppy. So now you know someone else.
Bull terrier
You mean the breed that pitbulls were made out of?
Also puppies are a lot less of a worry than grown dogs.
No English bull terriers are smaller, not the American kind.
Pitbulls were bred from bull terriers to be a bigger version. So it’s not surprising a different breed of terrier is also prone to biting.
Lol sane. No warning. No reason. Actually bit me pretty badly too.
I was bitten by a golden retriever when I was 12. It looked friendly so I went to pet it, and it sunk a canine into my arm. I was just unlucky (and slightly stupid) though, and it didn’t rip my face off, so I think I did ok overall.
A German shepherd also tried to bite me when passing it on a narrow path, but it just shredded my jacket pocket.
A Yorkshire terrier also had a go at me once, but didn’t make it through denim jeans.
I got bit by an English mastiff. That wasn’t a fun experience at 6.
There’s a reason to tolerate Chihuahua, cat, or other small animal bites. They cannot kill a child.
To be fair, cat bites can leave you with stitches.
Cat bites often become infected when not treated properly. But at least they are basically incapable of killing you immediately or causing lifelong disfigurement.
Same thing for paper cuts.
Life is dangerous. No one gets out of it alive.
Pit bulls are great for home defence though
So are machine guns and flame throwers and grenades.
That doesn’t mean they’re safe.
The less safe the better for home defense. Grenades are destructive to their surroundings, you’d put your home at risk using those.
A pit bull would stop a home invader with minimal damage to its surroundings though. Why would you want your home defence to be safe anyway?
Every pit bull home I’ve ever seen is shredded - I’ve never seen a frag grenade go off in real life, but I imagine the property damage is about the same.
Yes, I’ve seen pitbulls tear down drywall and studs, upset the foundation, and shatter every window within a 50ft radius…
If you will not write off a whole breed of dogs, you have not spent enough time around dogs.
Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Fighters do not need to be taught to fight.
These are innate behaviors. You can’t stop them.
There’s a reason pit bulls account for such a large fraction a dog related injuries.
And don’t let the pitbull defenders get to you with their “but it’s a mutt” or “they’re such sweet dogs” BS.
Of course they’re going to be nice to their owner. People who train and breed dogs to kill each other for entertainment are going to have no problem immediately bringing the dog that pisses them off out back and shooting them.
Fighters do not need to be taught to fight.
This is where I recognize that you are making stuff up. You lost me here…
Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve.
Shepherds have some herding instinct, but they don’t magically understand herding.
You do, in fact, need to train a herding dog to herd if you want it to be any good at it.
I don’t write off a whole breed,
I can. They are a non-natural breed created by people for cruel purposes and should be eradicated.
Yeah. They were literally bred to be as vicious as possible.
We can write them off. I don’t blame the dogs, I blame the people who made them this way.
Ok fair enough. I just don’t want to be mean to anyone.
What’s a natural breed of dogs? And how do you measure intention?
And my wife’s hairdresser has a vizla that bit her daughter’s face and caused her to get 100+ stitches and she’ll be scarred forever. Dogs can bite without warning regardless of the breed.
Every owner thinks their dog is a “good one” until it’s too late. They should be required to be neutered and not allowed to breed.
And the dogs too?
Ahhh, the ol lemmy switch-a-roo!
Hold my collar, I’m going in!
Really illustrates the point here that these anti pitbull types are just whipping up future genocidists.
Dogs are not people. Dogs are domesticated wolves that were selectively bred to have particular characteristics. Some of those characteristics that humans chose are problematic in modern society. Stop trying to act like humans doing one of the oldest human activities (breeding/culling domesticated animals) is akin to genocide and eugenics. False fucking equivalence.
I didn’t say they were equilavent. The toxic logic is what’s identical.
What toxic logic? I think you’ve possibly read far more into it than the humour that was intended.
The toxic logic that comes when you start saying behaviors are genetic, and how to eliminate such behaviors.
Especially the dogs.
Dogs, when involved in killings, are identified by FIRST RESPONDERS or POLICE OFFICERS, not by anyone with ANY KNOWLEDGE OF DOG BREEDS OR HUSBANDRY
We DO NOT HAVE AN ACCURATE COUNT on which breeds commit the most violence because THE PEOPLE REPORTING THE BREEDS OFTEN DO NOT HAVE QUALIFICATIONS TO DETERMINE BREEDS
Generic Street Dogs and any medium sized mutt CAN BE and ARE MISIDENTIFIED AS PITBULLS. Unless first responders, the police, and other people recording dog violence learn how to actually identify dog breeds, INNOCENT DOGS AND FAMILY MEMBERS WILL BE GENOCIDED FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON
What a weird thing to come out with. Someone has suffered a terrible injury and you’re concerned with a bloody DNA test.
Wanting to exterminate an entire breed of dogs is the harder solution than actually figuring out the cause of the attacks
Alot of those dogs have pitbull in them.
Considering before the 70’s the American Pitbull was “the American Dog”, it is the most populous single breed in the entire country, consisting of more than DOUBLE the second most common breed
That is completely untrue
Yeah, you’re a liar.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26403955/ https://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/visual-breed-identification/ It only takes a 2 second google search to find that visual identification of breed by people who EVEN WORK WITH DOGS is often incorrect, which is also to say people who DON’T work with dogs will have a poorer time correctly identifying breed by appearance alone
Lol, that’s breed identification. Most people don’t know most breeds. A lot of people who work with dogs don’t know all breeds.
Everyone can identify pitbull or pitbull mix vs not.
*Lack of consistency among shelter staff indicated that visual identification of pit bull-type dogs was unreliable. *
I mean if you’re not gonna click the links at least say so
deleted by creator
