What the so-called 'pit bull' "experts" can't reconcile

We admit it.  The folks associated with GoodPooch.com are tired.  We're tired of the egregiously ignorant people who do nothing but repeat things they've simply heard or read.  We're fed up with the people who refuse to admit they have no real expertise, or that true expertise is measured by the number of well-trained dogs one produces, not the number of dogs processed through a shelter or rescue group.  We're saddened by the sheer volume of people who wouldn't know a scientific fact if it came up and bit them in the...

...Hey, hey!

We don't hear from these...let's call them "misguided"...individuals very often.  But when we do, we find they're not interested in fact and truth; only perpetuating what can, at best, be described as little more than "beliefs".

...And you know what Nietzsche said about that...

"‘Belief’ means not wanting to know what is true."

Never forget that many respected scholars went around saying the earth was flat.  More recently, many apparently educated people claimed that alcohol was a stimulant.  We're now pretty sure both these claims are false, despite their initial support amongst respected and even educated individuals. 

There were thousands, if not millions, of people who truly believed the earth was flat, and set about vilifying anyone who claimed otherwise.  This, of course, was merely a belief.  Only once science was able to prove the earth was round, did people finally start to come around.  Unfortunately, there is no scientific way to prove a negative.  Science can't prove something doesn't exist; only that something does exist.

We leave it up to those who claim some condition or quality exists, to prove it.  When it comes to 'pit bulls', we know they're genetically, physiologically, and neurologically indistinguishable from every other dog 'breed'.  It is up to those who claim they aren't to provide actual evidence...not just hearsay.

"A myth, no matter how widely believed or how loudly repeated, is still just a myth." 

The mere fact that many people believe something in no way infers accuracy of the belief.  Many people believe all 'pit bulls' are vicious.  Is this true, simply because so many believe it to be true?  If not, why are other claims true, based solely on opinion, without a shred of scientific or practical validation?

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true." - Bertrand Russell

Every day, we find less and less support for the outdated notion that aggression in dogs is related to anything other than negligent or incompetent rearing.  There is certainly no scientific support for the idea that aggression can be inherited.

To help people better understand this, we sometimes explain that, when a person raises a dog he/she believes is "genetically predisposed to behave aggressively", that person will likely create an environment that inadvertently encourages the precise behaviours they expect.  For instance, the most obvious is lack of socialization. 

When dog owners believe their dogs "can't" be properly socialized, they typically don't try to socialize them or, if they do, they do so half-heartedly, and give up at the first obstacle, as "proof" the dog "can't" be properly socialized.  Even those who claim to really be trying to socialize dogs they believe can't be socialized, tend to do everything wrong, mostly out of anxiety or ignorance.  Keeping a tight leash is enough to induce something called "frustrative aggression" in dogs.  One's dog doesn't have to be a 'pit bull' to develop this problem.  In fact, most of the dogs that exhibit 'spatial restriction induced aggression' are not 'pit bulls'.

Often times the "concerns" of 'pit bull' group members are based on the theory that it is better to (brutally and needlessly) restrict all 'pit bulls', than to risk one more being added to the evening's headlines. 

(By that same logic, should all members of a race stay out of all stores, in the hopes of not perpetuating the myth "they're all criminals"?  We must all demand to be held accountable for our OWN actions, not the actions of people who merely look similar...or have similar-looking dogs!)

We understand the theory, though.  Believe me, we do!  Few groups work more tirelessly at changing public perception, requiring a higher standard of evidence, and holding media agencies accountable for the information they provide to the public, than we do.  It is not acceptable to pass along myth, hyperbole, and conjecture, without any scientific or practical proofs.

However, we don't feel that public ignorance or media sensationalism could ever be justification for failing to properly socialize any dog, or even to restrict it to the point it doesn't even know how to relate to members of its own species.  Truth be known, we consider it abuse to fail to properly socialize any dog to the point it can't behave appropriately with its own kind.

The emphasis is on the word "appropriate", for those of you who seek to use exceptions as your justification for your contrary views.  Yes...some dogs are not that gregarious.  There's nothing wrong with that, as long as it is a personality trait of that individual dog, and not the result of a lack of proper socialization.  Even properly reared dogs sometimes become less social, and less tolerant of other dogs and people, as they age.  The problem lies in what owners allow their dogs to do, as a result.

Aggressive dogs are not acceptable in human society in any form.  Period.  If a dog owner is incapable of properly training a dog not to behave aggressively, then he/she should seek professional assistance, or consider re-homing or humanely destroying that dangerous animal. 

("Management" rarely works to prevent unprovoked aggression incidents because nearly all these events take place at a time when the dog was not adequately supervised.  If the dog isn't being supervised, it certainly isn't being "managed".  This is, in part, why dogs known to be aggressive are involved in unprovoked biting incidents.  These incidents don't occur when the owner is "managing" the dog.  They occur when the dog is poorly supervised.  And it is for this reason that dangerous dogs don't belong in society.  Most dogs will, at some point, find themselves inadequately supervised.  Simply by raising an aggressive dog, one announces oneself as "irresponsible".  It is unreasonable to believe the vast majority of the owners of aggressive dogs will be responsible enough to "manage" them 100% of the time.)

In over 30 years of dog training, GoodPooch.com's founder's never found any reason to restrict 'pit bulls' from socialization experiences with other dogs.  In fact, the complete opposite is true.  The 'pit bulls' that come to us with aggression issues remain that way UNTIL they are properly (re-)socialized.

GoodPooch.com welcomes fact-based, scientific and practical challenges to ANY of the points below, and will consider them openly and objectively.  ...But we don't want to hear what so-and-so said.  Believe me, we've ALREADY heard it.  GoodPooch.com associates, including its founders, have been around for decades.  We know the views of "Joe Blow" and "Jane Doe".  To help everyone discern fact from opinion, remember this:

"In a scientific context, the word 'fact' is generally accepted reality.  'Opinion' is generally based on subjective influences.  For example, 'The Irish Setters I've met lead me to believe they're all friendly' is merely an 'opinion', whereas 'the merle gene in Great Danes is dominant, not recessive' is considered to be 'fact'." 

Many people don't know how to differentiate between what they simply believe to be true, and what can be proven to be true.  While individual experiences can hint that something may be true, anecdotes, themselves, are nowhere near actual proof.

We're not trying to prove we're right.  We're trying to provide people with factually, scientifically, and practically accurate information.  When there is no science to support a theory that we have found, both scientifically and practically, to be false, it is our duty to say, "We smell the bull$#!*."

So, without further à dieu, the following facts are irreconcilable with the notion that all 'pit bulls' are aggressive, either towards people or other animals:

1. First: Science

What is the theory?  'Pit bulls' brains are structurally or biochemically different from other dog breeds?  If so, how?  You'll have to explain how they are different, and offer evidence.  What are the unique neurotransmitters, receptors, etc?  Or...is it supposed to be genetic?  If so, where is this alleged gene located, and what are the alleles?  Where was this discovery made; who made it; and how has it been tested?

 

We have to say, we have people write to us with no other "proof" for their theories than a bunch of statements/articles written by other people who, themselves, have no scientific basis for their theories.  It's as though something is supposed to be true if enough people claim it is true.  In that case, all 'pit bulls' are vicious child killers; aliens are visiting our planet; and O.J. Simpson is - or isn't - guilty. 

 

Something is either true, implicitly, or it isn't.  That does not mean we have proofs for all true things.  But it does mean that one should not go around saying something is absolutely true, when there isn't even one shred of scientific proof for it.  That is the domain of "belief". 

 

Of course, a large segment of the general public is not honest enough to admit their own lack of expertise...even to themselves.

 

One person sent us a list of Internet articles as his evidentiary support for his theory that 'pit bulls' are inherently aggressive towards other dogs, and/or that dogs can be bred for aggression and even species-specific aggression.  Well, we read those articles.  Some of them included foot notes to other writings, and even a few scientific reports.  You know what?  We read them too!  Not a single one included a shred of scientific support for the theory that 'pit bulls'  are genetically or biochemically unique, or that they are inherently aggressive towards other dogs, or even that aggressive behaviours could be considered genetic.  Not one. 

 

We wonder, 'Do these people not even bother to read the alleged supporting documents before they send them to us?'

 

We have to say, with maybe a dozen letters of this type we've received since our launch, when not one has a shred of evidence to support his/her adamant assertions, we think that is just additional evidence for the overwhelming lack of scientific and practical support for such claims.  Why not one piece of science?  Why not one, large scale study or statistics that show 'pit bulls' are "inherently aggressive" towards other dogs?

 

Every last one of the articles/studies/reports/ramblings we've been directed to as alleged "proof" that 'pit bulls' are inherently aggressive towards other dogs has included no such "proof" at all.  And we mean "None!"  ...Just more hearsay and the occasional link to documents that don't even come close to credible support for those claims.

 

You see, we do take the time to research.  GoodPooch.com's founders have extensive backgrounds in the sciences, as well as decades of practical experience working with all types of dogs, including 'pit bulls'.  We have specialized in re-training aggressive adult dogs, as well.  And we DO read footnotes.  Still...

 

"Prejudice is as blind to common sense as it is deaf to the explanations of science."  

 

Listen...sending us a bunch of hearsay, and the tired old "because he/she says so" contention is boring, and old, and does not sway us one bit...especially given our success rate in working with aggressive dogs.  To even begin to explain what s/he means by 'pit bulls'  allegedly being "inherently" aggressive towards other dogs, s/he'd have to provide some proof, some reputable and verifiable studies, some kind of reasoned theory that has been tested (or at least could be tested scientifically) and shown to be as accurate as science can purport it to be at this point in history.  Some of our favourites to date are:

 

"It's in their blood."  (What, like sickle cell disease?  Really??  Then why has no one found "it" yet?)  In fact, a 'pit bull's blood is identical in composition to that of any other 'breed'.  If anyone has evidence of some kind of uniqueness to 'pit bull' blood, please forward that information to us!

 

"Gameness has been bred into 'pit bulls' for generations.  You can't fight against genetics."  (Really?  Gameness, huh?  So we "bred that into" them?)  Huh.  Wellllll....  We aren't aware of any instinctive dog behaviours "invented" by humans.  All dogs chase, to some degree.  All dogs exhibit predatory behaviour, to some degree.  All dogs can retrieve, to some degree.  Selective breeding merely either heightened those traits, or improved the likelihood those traits would be present, to some degree, in offspring.  We didn't "invent" any instinctual behaviours in dogs. 

 

One expert recently wrote an article about "gameness", in which she asked people involved in dog fighting (who swear by the theory of "gameness") to explain why they have to do so much training in order to get their dogs to fight?  Not one had a reasoned response.  Indeed, the fact they have to spend so much time training dogs to fight, and the fact that so many don't make good fighters (even from parents who allegedly had this so-called "gameness") strongly suggests a simpler cause for dog-aggression.  At best, the puppies described as possessing this alleged "gameness" are little more than precocious, tenacious, dominant, or some combination of those terms.

 

But then there's the ol' sticky wicket of getting people to differentiate between those behaviours that appear to be wholly instinctive, and those puppies learn as they grow older. 

 

You weren't born knowing how to speak English or ride a bicycle.  Similarly, puppies aren't born knowing what is a threat, what is effective in warding off a perceived threat, or how to heel, or compete in agility.  Even herding dogs from champion herding lines must be trained for years before they're proficient at something so seemingly instinctive as herding.  If we could "breed for" every behaviour, we'd certainly start with housetraining and heeling.  But we can't.  Those are learned behaviours.  They're not genetic. 

 

Aggressive behaviours are agreed to be learned behaviours.  [We've discussed this subject numerous times in other articles at GoodPooch.com.  Please see our sitemap for more info.]  Some dogs are openly encouraged to develop aggressive behaviours.  Some are inadvertently encouraged or allowed to develop aggressive behaviours, especially as a result of the exact kind of bad or misguided advice we fight so hard against, here at GoodPooch.com. 

 

Then there are those dogs which are never allowed to escalate even the first attempt at manipulating those around it, thus never learning a first aggressive behaviour and, therefore, never behaving aggressively.

 

How about this one? "Their brains respond differently to adrenaline, which makes them attack and won't let them back down."?  (Uh, huh.)  Hey...did you know that the vast majority of dogs involved in aggression incidents in which one dog "wouldn't back down" were instigated and "finished" by non-'pit bull' dogs?  All those pesky, real-world facts just get in the way though, right?

 

One of the "best" junk science terms we've come across would have to be the phrase "genetically unstable".  While that descriptor is valid, in terms of genes and their ability to withstand mutation, the term doesn't define an entire organism, like a dog.  It is most accurately used on a cellular, or subcellular, level.

 

Upon further investigation, the term "genetically unstable", where dogs are concerned, is most often meant to describe issues that have little to do with genetics, such as behavioural problems.  In one case, a dog was described as being "genetically unstable", yet the so-called expert recommended the owner seek out a behaviourist to correct the dog's problems.  Such advice is so ludicrous, it's almost comical. 

 

If a problem is genetic, it can only be dealt with on a genetic level.  Medication and gene therapy are the most likely attempts.  Behavioural issues respond to behaviour modification; proving they were never "genetic" in the first place.  (The author in this example was clearly unable to differentiate between a number of common terms, including "genetic", "temperament", and "behaviour".)

 

We can't say it any more succinctly:  There is not a shred of scientific evidence for the theory that aggressive behaviours are genetic in dogs, or that 'pit bulls' are somehow unique in this regard.  If you feel you have such evidence, then, by all means, please forward it to us.  We would L-O-V-E to read it!  And we will gladly do so objectively and respectfully, and give that evidence the respect and consideration it deserves.  We do nothing BUT enhance our existing knowledge base.  We don't know everything.  We're always a little surprised by the number of people who claim they do.

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." - Bertrand Russell

2. Second: Practicality

We have decades of success in re-training already aggressive adult dogs from all breeds, including many 'pit bulls'.  We have never been unsuccessful in re-training an aggressive 'pit bull', whether that aggression is directed at people or other animals.  Seems kind of funny that, in 30 years of dog training, we've never met one of these "inherently dog-aggressive 'pit bulls'".  Some of our dogs have come directly from dog fighting rings.
 

Many, many 'pit bulls' live freely in multi-dog homes without incident. In fact, many 'pit bulls' living in multi-dog homes reside with at least one other 'pit bull'.  An innate characteristic can't be turned on and off.  If a dog can get along with some dogs and not others, that is a clear indication of a learned response, or that of 'environment'.  Again, truly innate characteristics are always present.

3. There is no science that suggests aggressive behaviour can be inherited.  (Try poking a newborn puppy.  Does it lash out, or does it merely recoil?  Only once it has some practice at using its teeth for manipulating those around it, does that puppy attempt its first aggressive behaviour.  With practice comes perfection, or at least "effectiveness".)  We have not found a single dog involved in an attack that didn't have a known history of aggression.  Whether it is running along a fence line, growling or barking menacingly, or whether it is snapping, attempting bites, or succeeding in actually biting; the dogs involved in serious attacks have always shown their owners they would bite, one day, if left to their own devices.  (Responsible dog owners don't permit even the initial signs of aggression, thereby halting the escalation of aggressive behaviours that lead to bites.)
    

4. None of the dogs ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN ATTACKS that we've researched over the course of several years, have been genetically related in any meaningful way.  Ergo, there could not possibly be any inheritable quality that is theorized to be the cause of their aggressive behaviour.  Those dogs are simply no more closely genetically related than are human criminals on death row.  The dogs actually involved in real-world attacks are no more closely genetically-related than that which makes them dogs.
    

5. The dogs most often involved in dog-on-dog attacks are NOT 'pit bulls'.
    

6. In over 30 years of dog training, we've found the reasons non-'pit bull' dogs attack other dogs are the same reasons some 'pit bulls' attack other dogs:  Lack of socialization.  The difference is that non-'pit bull' dogs are usually poorly-socialized out of sheer ignorance, whereas many 'pit bulls' are poorly-socialized as a direct result of myths about their genetics.

Thousands and thousands of 'pit bull' owners around the world frequent dog parks every day, without incident.  To deny these dogs all the benefits of socialization, exercise, and training that takes place while at off-leash dog parks, for fear that less than 1% "might" be involved in "an incident" that "might" lead to further maligning of the 'breed', is unconscionably unethical and needless. 

 

There are so many people who are inordinately concerned about events that are extremely unlikely, we often ask them if they walk around wearing lightning rods?  You see, we think it is extremely hypocritical to worry more about any event that is less common than being hit by lightning, such as dog attacks in public places.  If those kinds of people are not concerned about being hit by lightning when they go out on walks, why the greater concern over less-likely events?  Why the hypocrisy?

7. Every one of the dogs involved in attacks that we've researched have had known aggression histories.  When those attacks were the first against a human, the dogs had known aggression histories towards either humans or other animals.  WHEN THOSE ATTACKS WERE THE FIRST AGGRESSION INCIDENTS TOWARDS A HUMAN, THEY ALL HAD KNOWN HISTORIES OF AGGRESSION TOWARDS OTHER ANIMALS (USUALLY OTHER DOGS)!  (Time and time again we hear statements to the effect of, "Sure, he'd attacked a few dogs in the past, but he'd never bitten a person before he mauled little Billy."  People who claim that aggression is species-specific either don't know the facts of real-world dog biting incidents, or they're egregiously misguided. 

Aggression is aggression.  Period.  It may be limited to cats, or dogs, or children, or strangers, for now.  Maybe, the dog might be managed well enough that it never has the opportunity to expand its aggressive behaviour.  Some dog owners actually permit/encourage aggression towards some individuals, but absolutely forbid it in other areas.  However, when left unchecked, aggressive behaviours usually escalate, and are likely to encompass other targets, in the future.  On the other hand, dogs who aren't permitted to behave aggressively at all, simply aren't involved in unprovoked biting incidents.

 

Of the dogs involved in their first aggression incidents towards a human (even in those cases where the victims' injuries were serious or fatal), most had behaved aggressively towards other animals in the past (usually against other dogs).  Many of the owners of these kinds of aggressive dogs usually state their belief the dogs would never harm a person because they had only ever behaved aggressively towards other dogs in the past. 

 

A good example is the Courtney Trempe case.  Lovely, little Courtney was killed by a dog the owner claimed had never behaved aggressively before.  The owner went on to say that he "couldn't have known" the dog would attack Courtney because it had never behaved aggressively towards a person.  In fact, the dog had not only attacked in the past, but had killed.  The owner dismissed these incidents because the victims had all be other dogs...until Courtney came along, and was mauled to death.

 

There are thousands of similar incidents; where the owner is "surprised" the dog attacked a person "because it had only ever behaved aggressively towards other dogs in the past."

 

It is simply not true that aggression in dogs is species-specific.  The real-world data of dog biting incidents does anything but support the idea that dogs who are only aggressive towards other dogs today, will remain that way forever.  In fact, every bit of evidence suggests that aggressive dogs (no matter who their current intended victims are) will be most likely to bite a person unprovoked in the future.

 

Every dog involved in an attack that we've investigated (since 1999), has had a known history of aggression, either towards people, other animals, or both.

8. Properly socialized dogs, including 'pit bulls', are simply not involved in unprovoked attacks. (A dog can not be properly socialized entirely on-leash, nor is it being properly socialized at the end of a tight leash and collar, or with owners who restrict it from normal interactions with others.)
    

9. People who believe their dogs will behave aggressively are infinitely more likely to fail to properly socialize their dogs, resulting in the kinds of poorly-socialized dogs involved in nearly 100% of unprovoked biting incidents.
    

10. Dog-on-dog aggression incidents occur almost exclusively on, or near, the attacking dog owner's property, as a function of both poor socialization, and permitted territorial behaviour.  (Dogs who are not permitted to behave aggressively, no matter what the theorized rationale, simply aren't involved in unprovoked biting incidents.)
     

11. The dogs involved in the most serious dog-on-dog attacks are simply not dogs that are properly socialized and/or regularly taken for socialization experiences off-leash with other dogs.
     

12. There is a difference between following advice you've heard or read, and being able to justify one's position in scientific terms.  Simply because "Joe Blow" is respected in the 'pit bull' community, and Joe Blow says this or that, it doesn't mean what Joe Blow actually says is true.  Before implementing (and especially before passing along) information, it is one's duty to validate any claims through scientific and practical means. 

(To help people understand this, we like to use the commonly-held belief that some breeds are "inherently friendly".  Both scientifically and practically, it is proven there is no such thing as either a "friendly" or "unfriendly" dog breed.  The breeds that top most dog bite statistics are ones commonly referred to as "friendly".  Bites are incongruous with the term "friendly".  The members of these so-called "friendly breeds" involved in unprovoked biting incidents are dogs that have not been properly socialized or trained; the only method for raising a good canine citizen of any breed.  This is simply more evidence that it is the owner's failure to properly socialize his/her dog which is the root of the problem, and has little to do with the dog's genetics.) 

13. Dog breeds are genetically identical.
     

14. Dog brains are identical in structure, regardless of breed.
     

15. If one's views are based on personal experience in "fully" training (not just processing) fewer than, say, 100 individual dogs, one's experience is probably too limited to justify huge generalizations about entire 'breeds'. 
     

16. "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.
     

17. As hinted at earlier, dog owners who believe their dogs are "inherently aggressive" tend to create the exact behaviours they fear.  These kinds of people don't provide adequate socialization experiences for their dogs.  They behave anxiously around other dogs.  They create negative associations with other dogs by keeping tight leashes and collars, interfering in normal dog communication behaviours, and some even punish their dogs for interacting with other dogs.  Again, a dog simply can not be properly socialized entirely on-leash.  If you won't (or don't know how to) responsibly socialize a dog with others, it is no wonder your dog doesn't know how to get along with others of its own species.  ...And it's all so needless, for wont of some good, fact-based advice and coaching, and a willingness on the part of the owner to encourage the natural behaviours of his/her dog in a responsible and positive way.
     
18. Anyone who claims that a dog doesn't need to be taught/encouraged to fight other dogs is either lying or is irretrievably ignorant.  Even the worst of dog fighters agree they must train their dogs to fight (typically by brutal training that begins in puppyhood).  Luckily, even dogs taken directly from fighting rings are routinely successfully re-trained by competent trainers.

There is certainly a lot more we could say on this subject, but we'll leave it there ...for now...

Splash  Home  Site Map  Contact  Store