56
Dog breed bans are about human prejudice — not the dogs
(www.vox.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
56 points (65.2% liked)
politics
19246 readers
2608 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pitbulls are responsible for more human attacks than any other breed.
https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2019-06/new-study-identifies-most-damaging-dog-bites-by-breed/
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.
A pitbull isn't even a breed of dog. Grouping them all together as a breed is like grouping together all dogs considered hounds. It's an umbrella term for the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, American bulldog, Boston terrier, Boxer, Bull terrier, Bullmastiff, English bulldog, French bulldog, and Staffordshire bull terrier.
So essentially statistics on pitbull bites are either completely flawed, or just flat out wrong.
Vox did a very nice piece on pitbull stigma that changed my mind about them.
That is simply not true. More injuries are attributed to “pit bull type” breeds but that is far different from “more human attacks.” It’s also wildly tainted since it’s based on self reporting and any time it’s not an obvious German shepherd, husky or golden (etc) if someone can’t quite guess what it is most people are predisposed to assuming pit bull because of bigots like you that just hate the breed.
Small dogs like chihuahuas are far more likely to attack humans than pit bulls, although serious injury is less likely for smaller breeds. Even that is skewed based on human factors and handling since small dogs like chihuahuas are often carted around and over handled with complete disregard for their comfort or tolerance level because they’re “pocket sized” and too many assholes have no problem just picking them up whether they want it or not.
The only thing your link shows is that the majority of unknown large dogs that caused injuries were assumed to be pit bulls by one person or another.
FTA:
I'm glad you took time to take a nuanced opinion on the article that you don't seem to have read. To be honest it sounds like you didn't read your own article. "unknown” tops the list. This is because dog breeds aren't identified by genetics a cop shows up says oh it looked like a pitbull it had a blocky head and it's automatically a pit until DNA tests prove otherwise.
I read the article. It’s the same old excuses about “It’s the owner not the breed.” And “Breed is not a reliable predictor of aggressive behavior in dogs.”
Those statements just aren’t true. Dogs are specifically bred for certain physical and behavioral traits.
There was also a study done that proved breeding aggressive animal lines made their progeny even more aggressive. And docile more docile.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/whos-a-good-fox-soviet-experiment-reveals-genetic-roots-of-behavior
For the data to be useful it needs to be normalized.
What's the rate of bites per number of that breed in the country?
The problem is that breed ownership numbers are only drawn from voluntary club registrations, which isn't particularly representative and going to be biased against low income owners and rescues.
Did pit bulls bite the most often because they are the most violent, or just because they are very common? Are there environmental factors, such as pit bulls being more commonly a rescue dog and rescue dogs being more likely to bite?
Are there breeds that are much more prone to biting that just aren't as popular in ownership such that absolute numbers on bites doesn't reveal them?
The article is 1,000% right that the existing numbers and studies suck and are next to worthless.
Edit: Apparently 84% of fatal bites are from dogs that aren't spayed or neutered, and 76% are by dogs that aren't kept as a family pet which are the types of environmental factors that might be quite a bit more relevant than breed, especially given that only 20% of dogs aren't spayed or neutered and yet represent 84% of fatal bites. Also, glossed over in the link I was responding to is that 82% of the fatal bites are an "Unknown" breed, which is wildly higher than one might have expected.
Edit 2: Additional resources - apparently the data point from the commenter below is from a poor 2000 study that relied on tenuous breed identification and the research world has been trying to correct ever since, with the 2012 study cited above being by one of the same authors of the 2000 study and presenting a very different picture, and more recent research such as:
Pit bulls are estimated to only be about 6% of the dog popualtion, and account for 70% of fatal bites.
By your logic pitbulls would have to be 70% of owned dogs, and let me tell you walking around 7 in 10 dogs are not pitbulls.
First off, you'd need to also factor in the percentage of large dogs, as no matter how vicious a toy breed or even medium sized dog is, it isn't going to have a high fatal bite count. So out of the 36% of dog households that have a large dog, pitt ownership might be more than 6% of the total.
Then again, we need to look at other factors as well.
Maybe 70% of rescue dogs are pitts and 100% of fatal bites were from rescues? (Or vice versa, that 100% of fatal bites were from rescues and 70% of the rescues that went on to bite were pitts, which is a more subtle but still very different picture of events which might reflect fairly narrow causal environmental factors like prior fight training.)
Without the additional layers of data, the best we can do is draw potentially misleading conclusions around causative factors when we barely have correlative ones.
And the ways in which this could be dangerous in terms of social policy is if actions are taken around the mythos of it being a breed specific trait, it not being that, and then unexpected outcomes occurring, such as a popularity shift towards an even more dangerous breed as pitt ownership declines or ignoring or even exacerbating underlying causal relationships to environmental factors.
We've seen how bad data science applied to human crime rates can lead to supremely (supremacist?) misleading claims around the contributing factors with an over representation of demographic data that's simply correlative to underlying causative environmental factors.
So if we both know full well that saying "XYZ demographic is 2-3x more likely to commit violent crimes so we should get rid of XYZ demographic from the population" is an outrageously bad faith argument predicated on poor data analysis, I'm curious what you think is materially different about the data evaluation aspects that you support the analogous claim here?
Pitbulls were specifically bred as fighting dogs to fight and kill other dogs in pits.
Don't apply human logic to dog breeding. Dogs are specifically bred by humans to have specific traits. Humans are not bred to have specific traits.
And at least one study I've read showed that bad ownership and rescue status only account for 20% of dog attacks, so most attacks are not a result of bad ownership.
The closest I could find to the study you mentioned was the following:
https://positively.com/articles/fatal-dog-bites-share-common-factors/
Where yes, it says that in 21% of cases the dog was subject to abuse and neglect (one out of five is a rather large number by the way).
That same study says that in 37.5% of cases the owner had previously 'mismanaged' the dog in the past.
And then you have numbers like in 76.2% of cases the dog was not kept as a family pet.
Or that in 84.4% of cases the dog was not spayed or neutered.
Including this gem:
So please, tell me more about how we shouldn't be looking at environmental factors because dogs aren't people and with dogs it's all about breed and nothing else...
Edit: Ah, we also have this study's results: