|
|
 |
|||
 |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Everything You Wanted To Know About 'Pit Bulls' The Difficulty In Accurately Identifying 'Pit Bulls' Who Is Qualified To Determine If A Dog Is A 'pit bull'? Who Is Not Qualified To Determine If A Dog Is A 'pit bull'? Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards Other Dogs? Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards People? Don't Some Dogs Have Aggressive Temperaments? Are 'Pit Bulls' More Likely To Bite? Some 'pit bull' Breeders Claim That 'Bad Breeding' Causes Aggression
"It is hard to fight a battle against fear when your only tools are fact and truth" - Dr. Gary Goeree, DVM
"Prejudice is as blind to common sense as it is deaf to the explanations of science." - from the documentary, "Human Mutants"
The Name
The term 'pit bull', in its somewhat broad meaning, generally includes breeds such as: American Pit Bull Terrier (UKC), American Staffordshire Terrier (CKC & AKC), Staffordshire Bull Terrier (CKC & AKC), and sometimes the Bull Terrier.
These breeds were originally used for "sports" like bull baiting and dog fighting. However, just like the vast majority of dog breeds, they are now bred almost exclusively for companionship. Where "pit bulls" are concerned, their original uses have, thankfully, been recognized as inhumane, with only a few cruel individuals still subjecting innocent dogs to this kind of torture.
The Difficulty In Accurately Identifying 'Pit Bulls'
To accurately identify a dog of just about any breed, the viewer must be truly experienced with a wide array of dog breeds. Even some "experts" might have difficulty differentiating between a female AmStaff and a female Cane Corso, for example.
Unfortunately, many other breeds or crosses are confused with 'pit bulls'. Similar-looking, but much larger breeds such as: Presa Canario, Cane Corso, Dog Argentino, & Tosa Inu are more frequently misidentified as 'pit bulls' than not.
And even breeds that look nothing like 'pit bulls' have been reported as such. Some of those misidentified as 'pit bulls' are: Jack Russell Terrier, Labrador Retriever, Great Dane, and even an Airedale cross.
Who Is Qualified To Determine If A Dog Is A 'Pit Bull'?
What many people don't know is that a dog's breed can never actually be proven, not even through DNA. Genetically speaking, a Chihuahua is a wolf is a Labrador is a 'pit bull'. The determination of breed is quite subjective, especially when the dog's parentage is unknown.
There have been dogs that looked exactly like a typical 'pit bull' who we know have no 'pit bull' in them, whatsoever. Crosses like Lab and Rhodesian Ridgeback or Chesapeake Bay Retriever and Boxer could throw puppies that look like 'pit bulls', for example.
Only those experienced with a wide range of similar-looking breeds are expert enough to make the subtle distinctions. This may include breeders, dog show judges, or anyone with years of personal experience with multiple, similar-looking breeds. There is no course of instruction for this. It requires years of interaction with the breeds in question, in order to accurately differentiate one from the other.
Who Is Not Qualified To Determine If A Dog Is A 'Pit Bull'?
Those who are not qualified to determine if a dog is a 'pit bull' include anyone who hasn't had a great deal of experience differentiating between the breeds that look similar to, but are not, 'pit bulls'. (I.E. even those people who are experienced with 'pit bulls' may not be familiar with subtle differences that set other, less common breeds apart.)
Without personal knowledge gained outside the regular requirements for licensing or certification, even animal control workers and veterinarians have no greater ability to determine breed more accurately than the general population at large.
Animal control workers are not required to have any special knowledge of dog breeds in order to fulfill their role. There is no requirement for animal control workers to prove their ability to determine a dog's breed to a scientific or legal certainty. (Indeed, there is no such scientific or legal certainty, other than purebred breeding registration papers generally accepted to determine a dog's breed.)
Animal control workers are not typically held to a standard of competency in this regard. For instance, even in cases where an animal control worker incorrectly labels a dog as a 'pit bull', only to be later legally determined not to be a 'pit bull'; the animal control worker usually is not reprimanded, nor are any future breed determinations considered suspect. Indeed, in most cases, the animal control worker's label is never legally or scientifically challenged, so he/she never knows if ANY of his/her breed determinations are accurate.
Veterinarians receive little, if any, instruction in dog behaviour, training, or breed differentiation. Veterinary students often have no special expertise with dogs before attending veterinary college. Licensed veterinarians are expert at diagnosing and treating illness, and performing surgery. Unless they are also active in dog training, studying dog behaviour, breeding, competing, or judging accredited dog shows, in addition to their veterinary practice, their license alone does not qualify them in these areas. (We have yet to find a single licensing board that requires veterinarians to prove expertise in dog breed differentiation and determination, especially in the cases of unregistered and mixed-breed dogs, in order to be licensed in that region.)
The average dog owner is equally as unlikely to be familiar with the often confusing differences between breeds. The general public is even less likely to accurately determine breed. The owner of one purebred and typical-looking Great Dane has been told her dog looks like:
Clearly, this example demonstrates that many people are just guessing at a dog's breed. A Great Dane looks nothing like a 'pit bull', a Boxer, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, a Catahoula Leopard Dog, an Irish Wolfhound, a Doberman Pinscher, or an Afghan Hound. At best, the similarity is minor between a Great Dane and either a Mastiff or a Greyhound.
Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards Other Dogs?
The short answer, "No."
"There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive, vicious or dangerous." - testimony from Standing Committee on amendments to the Dog Owners Liability Act. 2005 "Variability in behaviour has a wider range within a breed than between breeds. Within the discipline of psychobiology and animal behaviour there is no data from empirically supported studies, published in refereed scientific literature, to support the idea that one breed of dog is `vicious.' The adult behaviour of a domestic dog is determined overwhelmingly by its experiential history, environmental management and training." - Dr. Mary Lee Nitschke, Ph.D. It is more common than not to hear 'pit bulls' referred to as "dog-aggressive". In fact, they aren't. Some may become fearful around other dogs due to a lack of proper socialization. But this happens with all breeds of dogs, not just 'pit bulls'. Unfortunately, this lack of socialization is frequently encouraged by those who fancy themselves 'pit bull' experts. (To read what others have to say about taking 'pit bulls' to dog parks, click here.)
Citing the breed's history as a dog fighter, some people believe there is some kind of magic "dog fighting" gene or brain chemistry that is passed along from sire and dam to puppy. The truth is, there is no such thing. (Read the article from Dr. Gary Goeree, DVM, regarding the theory that 'pit bulls' have some kind of unique brain chemistry.)
So why are so many 'pit bulls' involved in attacks on other dogs? Well, the answer is, they aren't necessarily involved more often than any other breed. For instance, Rottweilers are probably involved in just as many attacks on other dogs, yet they were not bred for dog fighting. They were bred to herd cattle and work as guardians. If put to the test, most people would have to honestly answer that it is not 'pit bulls' involved in most of the dog biting incidents in their communities. Some, maybe. But just as many Labradors, Goldens, Dalmations, Jack Russells, Poodles, etc. also stand accused of biting other dogs.
Bites to other dogs are not unique to 'pit bulls', even though it is only 'pit bulls' who were originally bred for dog fighting.
To better understand the situation, we must look at statistical data about dogs who bite other dogs. In the real world, virtually every breed of dog has been attributed with bites to other dogs. Yet, only a handful of breeds, including 'pit bulls', were bred for fighting. If the reason a tiny percentage of 'pit bulls' bite other dogs is in their genes, why is only such a small percentage of them involved in biting incidents? (Wouldn't MOST of them be aggressive towards other dogs, if the breed is, in fact, genetically programmed to attack other dogs?) And why are breeds that were not bred for fighting involved in MORE dog-on-dog biting incidents than 'pit bulls'?
The answer is, aggression towards other dogs is a learned behaviour. As Cyndi Frendo of K9 Concepts aptly put it, "Aggression is a behaviour, not a temperament."
Believing the myth that 'pit bulls' are naturally aggressive towards other dogs, all-too-many people restrict their 'pit bulls' from normal, positive, social interactions with other dogs. Here's an example of how it all starts:
This is indicative of the anxious responses many dog owners exhibit when meeting other dogs. By pulling tight on leashes and collars, or worse (as in the case of the puppy's owner), these kinds of inexperienced dog owners are actually creating a negative association with meeting strange dogs. How would you feel if every time you met someone new, someone yanked a collar around your neck; harshly pulled you away; and ultimately never allowed you to interact with strangers? You wouldn't exactly be nice and relaxed around strangers, huh?
Same goes for dogs.
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." - Bertrand Russell
Some self-proclaimed 'pit bull experts' actually counsel owners to inadequately socialize their 'pit bulls' in a misguided attempt to "protect" them from dog fights. While we understand the concern about "adding fuel to the fire" of 'pit bull' haters, we find the idea of inadequately socializing 'pit bulls' to simply add to the problem, rather than solve anything.
Think back to the accounts you've heard or read of 'pit bulls' seriously attacking other dogs. How many of those cases involved dogs at off-leash parks? A few...maybe. But the overwhelming majority of the dog attacks we've researched (involving 'pit bulls' and other dog breeds) take place on or directly adjacent to the attacking dog's owner's property.
More often than not, a dog-on-dog attack occurs when someone walks his/her dog past another dog's yard, and that dog runs out and attacks the passing dog.
It is clear that these are NOT well-socialized dogs that are regularly in the presence of other dogs, especially unrestrained. It is also obvious that these are not responsibly-owned dogs, since truly responsible dog owners ensure their dogs are properly socialized and they don't leave them unsupervised outside the home. (A properly socialized dog simply doesn't feel threatened by any dog that is not actually threatening it...'pit bull' or no.)
Quite the contrary to being "inherently aggressive towards other dogs", dog park regulars are typically happy to see 'pit bulls' in dog parks because they are often extremely playful and well-mannered dogs. (Especially given that they must be the types of 'pit bull' owners knowledgeable enough to dismiss the all too common counsel to avoid dog parks.) 'Pit bulls' that frequent dog parks are some of the best dogs around!
While walking through an off-leash dog park in Toronto, the following conversation was overheard:
People who "get" the concept of proper socialization understand how vital off-leash interaction is. Sure, it could happen at private dog clubs. It could be accomplished through a large, vibrant group of dog owners. But it is most easily and affordably accomplished via readily accessible public dog parks.
But...proper socialization does require owners who are knowledgeable and committed enough to provide for those positive socialization experiences with strangers on a regular basis.
'Pit bulls' in these roles will frequently come in contact with other dogs, and obviously must not be aggressive towards them in any way. This is more proof that aggression towards other dogs is a behaviour that can either be learned, un-learned, or never acquired in the first place.
If you still believe that 'pit bulls' are "naturally aggressive towards other dogs", despite everything we've written, the best we can do is suggest the most reasonable version of this theory: http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/DOGPARK.html
Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards People?
Well, many of the fanciers of the breed would yell out a resounding, "No," in spite of the fact that 'pit bulls' have killed more Americans, over the past few decades, than any other dog 'breed'.
"Oh, no. They were bred to be friendly towards humans," is the mantra one will often hear repeated. This idea flies in the face of the statistics. No other 'breed' (although the term 'pit bull' is generally considered to be a group of breeds) has killed as many Americans, in the past few decades, as have 'pit bulls'. (NB: The very first unprovoked, dog-related human fatality in Canadian history, alleged to have involved a 'pit bull', occurred in May 2006. The dog, however, was purchased as a Collie/Jack Russell Terrier cross, and it is only government officials who claim it was a 'pit bull'-type. The victim, as is so often the case, was the dog's owner.)
Does this mean that 'pit bulls' are inherently dangerous towards people? Even if we believed all the myths about 'pit bulls', the statistics still point to the fact that only a tiny percentage of the 'pit bulls' in society are ever involved in biting incidents. For instance, if there are at least 50,000* 'pit bulls' in Canada, and we theorized an astounding 25 'pit bull' "attacks", that would still mean 99.9% of 'pit bulls' are never involved in attacks. Surely 99.9% of a population shouldn't have to pay the price for the transgressions of such a tiny minority.
*There are likely hundreds of thousands of 'pit bulls' in Canada, given that there are estimated to be 30,000 in the city of Toronto, alone.
So, are 0.1% of 'pit bulls' inherently aggressive towards humans? No, again. Even those 'pit bulls' that have been involved in serious biting incidents can be rehabilitated through responsible ownership and ethical training techniques.
Only those who have never been successful at re-training dogs believe it can't be done. (Read about Dr. C. W. Meisterfeld's documentary, "The Unique Nature of Man's Best Friend: Rehabilitated 'Pit Bulls'")
Human fatalities are not unique to 'pit bulls' by any means. Every Group of dog breeds, even several members of the Toy Group, have been attributed with human deaths. Sure, according to American statistics, there are more 'pit bulls' involved in fatal dog bites, but many other breeds have also killed.
Never forget that, in any given year in the United States, 0-4 humans might be killed by a 'pit bull'. Approximately 10-15 people will be killed by non-'pit bull' dogs. In fact, of the last 400 or so dog bite injury-related human fatalities in the U.S., about 320 (or 80%) are attributed to non-'pit bull' dogs. The 'pit bulls' that have killed people (typically someone in the dog's home) make up just 0.00002% or less of the estimated 'pit bull' population. Clearly, not only are 99.99998% (or more) of 'pit bulls' NOT "killers", but 'pit bulls' don't even cause the majority of dog bite injury-related human fatalities!
The ability to determine if a puppy will become a danger, one day, is best achieved by viewing the puppy's owner. Does that person hope the puppy will grow up to be fierce, or protective, or a weapon? If so, it doesn't matter what breed of dog they own. They will likely be successful, through improper training.
The sad fact is, many powerful breeds are purchased in the hopes they can be used as weapons. This is not unique to 'pit bulls'. However, the kinds of people who want their dogs to become aggressive have found that little 30-60 lb 'pit bulls' can be trained to be just as menacing as their larger counterparts, yet they cost a lot less to feed and house. And because they are physically much smaller, are easier for inexperienced owners to manage. They are the perfect "pocket protector", relative to much larger breeds that were originally created for the purpose of guarding or personal protection.
If you:
...if you're that kind of person...
...you'll be quickly overwhelmed by an adult Great Dane or Mastiff, for example. These breeds are much more costly to keep than a 'pit bull', and they will soon be able to drag the owner anywhere they please, if not obedience trained. Luckily for fanciers of these breeds, these facts have kept them from becoming popular with the kinds of people who want dogs as weapons. Unfortunately for 'pit bulls', they are an ideal choice for thugs, criminals, and those who need a "tough" dog in order to feel "macho". They don't cost much and can, even without the requisite hours and hours of obedience training, be physically restrained by the average adult.
While 'pit bulls' have caused more fatalities than any other "breed" in the United States, the percentage of the actual 'pit bull' population involved in such incidents remains miniscule, and the frequency of incidents is directly proportional to their popularity with jerks who acquire dogs for the purpose of training them to become dangerous.
[At times, in the United States, 'pit bulls' have been responsible for as many as one-third of dog-related fatalities in a given year. In other years, there have been few or no fatalities attributed to 'pit bulls', while other (irresponsibly-owned) dog breeds have been responsible for the dog-related fatalities that have occurred. This is more evidence of the overwhelming role owner-intent plays, rather than any theorized "inherently vicious" quality in 'pit bulls'. If 'pit bulls' were "inherently vicious", most of them would bite, and the numbers would remain constant. The facts prove the opposite: Nearly all 'pit bulls' never bite anyone or anything.]
However, it's important to point out that when 'pit bulls' do bite, the reasons are the same as they are for any of the other breeds who bite or kill. Poor supervision and lack of proper training and socialization by the dog's owner is to blame. This explains why so many unrelated breeds are involved in aggression incidents. Breed is not the deciding factor. The home environment is.
Notice how many different breeds stand accused of serious attacks. Then notice how the owners of attacking dogs (of any breed) share so many commonalities. They are often known criminals and have not properly raised and trained their dogs. They have usually left them unsupervised in the yard or with children. Some even allow them to roam, at-large.
It's so obvious the owners are the deciding factor (and not the dozens of different dog breeds or lack of genetic relation to one another) when a bite occurs, that it's still puzzling why the dogs are blamed at all.
We have yet to confirm a single case of a responsibly-owned dog attacking someone unprovoked.
Don't Some Dogs Have Aggressive Temperaments?
"Aggression is a behaviour, not a temperament."
Many people like to throw around the terms "good" and "bad" temperaments, but these labels are meaningless. A dog of so-called "good" temperament could easily become aggressive if abused or neglected. Dogs labelled as having "bad" temperaments are routinely rehabilitated by experienced, successful trainers. Labels like "good" and "bad" truly are meaningless, in that they are wholly relative to the behaviours the dog has learned, and the environment in which it is kept.
What isn't meaningless are the real temperament types. Dominant, submissive, and all the shades of gray in between are the temperaments that dogs are born with. These temperaments don't significantly change, regardless of the dog's environment. More importantly, all are 100% trainable, even though different temperaments may require different training methods.
It's the "one trick pony" type trainers who are unsuccessful at training dogs. These kinds of people force their limited training methods on dogs of all temperament types. When they're unsuccessful, they label the dog as "untrainable". In reality, all dogs are trainable. It's trainers who fail to adequately convey and reinforce the desired behaviours to dogs.
It is important to note that a litter of puppies from the same two parents can present a wide variety of temperament types. Sometimes, from the same two parents, a litter can present the entire gamut of temperaments, from extremely dominant to extremely submissive, regardless of the temperaments of the parents. We don't have as much control over breeding temperament as we like we think we do. Regardless, we are comforted by the fact that dogs of all temperaments can be trained to become model canine citizens.
Dogs Are Natural Predators
Yes, dogs are predators who kill for food. But they must learn this skill through encouragement and practice. Man has not yet found a way to raise wolf cubs in captivity and successfully release them into the wild. The wolves never learn how to kill for food on their own. Other wolves must teach them to hunt, and they must practice their hunting technique to become proficient. Chasing is instinctual for dogs. Killing for food isn't.
In fact, wild canids rarely injure each other in the wild. All their fierce looking squabbling is mere posturing. Dogs are as naturally averse to physical confrontation as are humans. It is quite rare for an injury to take place amongst dogs. When it does, it is usually a simple bite and release. It is immeasurably rare for wild dogs to kill one another.
Are 'Pit Bulls' More Likely To Bite?
All dogs are predators by nature, with teeth that can bite. However, proper rearing teaches dogs (and yes, children) how to get what they want without resorting to violence. All breeds of dog respond well to ethical training methods.
There are two main points that many people fail to recognize:
There are some who claim that certain breeds have a lower "bite threshold" than others. The methodology used to test this theory is unethical and inherently unscientific.
The methods for inducing dog bites are unethical. This means that only irresponsibly-owned dogs would be participating in any scheme that hopes to induce a bite response. (What responsible dog owner would willingly allow his/her well-trained, well-socialized, and loved dog to be provoked to the point that it feels it must bite?)
Another problem with such tests is the natural tendency for humans to "create" their intended result. If the individual expects a dog of a certain breed to respond aggressively, he/she may use more severe inducements or maintain the inducements longer. If the breed is expected to be more docile, the individual may not try as hard to elicit an aggressive response.
This is the problem not only with tests of this kind, but with dog ownership in general. Those who hope their dogs will behave aggressively are usually successful, no matter which breed the dog is. The sad reality is, this means that many breeds are purchased for the stated purpose of "protection". Everyone then blames the dog's breed when it behaves the way it was encouraged by the owner.
To put it more simply, very few potential dog owners set out to choose between a Yorkshire Terrier and a 'pit bull', or a Maltese and Rottweiler. The owner's intent is what tends to drive the selection process. And this is ultimately why more dogs that were purchased by people who'd hoped the breed would be "protective" are involved in unprovoked aggression incidents...not exclusively (given that even Toy breed dogs have killed), but certainly more often than others.
Some 'Pit Bull' Breeders Claim That 'Bad Breeding' Causes Aggression
Science simply doesn't support that theory. If we look at the issue pragmatically, we'd search for evidence that dogs who attack are genetically related in some meaningful way. This would indicate an inheritable component to aggressive behaviour; some kind of shared genetic cause for the aberrant behaviour.
In fact, the 'pit bulls' involved in serious attacks are not genetically related in any meaningful way. When we look at all dogs involved in serious attacks, we see that they, too, are not genetically linked in any way that supports the theory of a genetic basis for aggression. In addition, purebreds are never crossed with other breeds, by definition. This excludes the idea of shared genetic pathology amongst dogs of differing breeds.
The dogs involved in serious biting incidents are not closely genetically related. Therefore, they could not possibly share some kind of unique, inheritable gene that causes them to attack. In fact, we haven't come across two unique attack incidents involving dogs that are genetically related in any meaningful way. There is no scientific support for the theory that dogs can "inherit" aggressive behaviours.
More on Aggression, Temperament, and So-called "Experts"
|
Quick facts: The term 'pit bull' most often refers to a group of breeds. Dogs involved in unrelated attacks are not closely genetically related; meaning there is no "genetic cause" for the aggression. (They're as unrelated as are most human criminals.) It is a very small percentage of 'pit bulls' involved in attacks. The over-whelming majority of 'pit bulls' never bite anyone. 'Pit bulls' make excellent Assistance Dogs, Therapy Dogs, Substance Detection Dogs, and Search and Rescue Dogs. Every breed of dog has been attributed with aggression towards other dogs, even though most breeds were not originally bred for dog fighting. This is evidence that dog aggression has little to do with any breed's original purpose. |
|||
| © 2002-2007 GoodPooch.com | ||||
Thousands of
responsible 'pit bull' owners have not only properly
socialized their companion dogs, but many of them are even
certified Therapy Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs, and
Assistance Dogs.