Wow. I actually came here looking for a backpack for Maggie (yes, she's an APBT) to use hiking. Didn't really expect this conversation. Now usually I'd leave these threads alone because in other corners of the internet they're just two ill-informed sides shouting personal biases. But I was surprised to find a fair amount of research and thought from both sides--the anti-PB side surprising me the most. That's not an insult, it's just usually I hear "get that dog away from my kid, they flip out for no reason and have locking jaws."
So for those interested in another (likely biased) account, here goes. Statistics are important. You want to have something concrete to back your belief, otherwise it's just prejudice, and that doesn't fix anything. But keep in mind that statistics are always interpreted, both from the collection side and the analysis side. Which is not to say they're useless, only that they need to be contextualized to make sense. I do not know where the "pit bulls are 6% of the population" stat came from exactly. Or the 50% of bites stat, etc. I do know that here in NYC they're the most popular breed. And that for a dog to be called a "pit bull" according to the associated press it merely need to appear to be a "fighting or aggressive dog." Otherwise they write American Pit Bull Terrier. So if we're going by media accounts, most of the time a "pit bull" is not an American Pit Bull Terrier. Not even in the same family. Just a mean mutt. HOWEVER, I have no doubt that bully breeds currently make up a plurality of the annual dog bites. So what does that mean? They're dangerous?
Again, we need to look at the fact that this bully breed "problem" has only arisen in the last two decades. Pit bulls as a breed have been around for much, much longer. As someone else pointed out, other breeds have been the target in the past--as few as 2 decades ago Dobermans were the "man-eaters." Before that our beloved GSD. The fact is that cultural factors, popularity, and perception play a huge role in the breed's relationship to humans.
But let's switch gears for a second and look at a fact that one of the anti-pb posters made. “Look, we are not surprised when a pointer starts pointing, or when my dachshund starts digging. Everyone accepts that.” Why don't we expect the same from pit bulls? I'll tell you, any good pit owner does. That's why we tend not to bring them around large groups of unwatched dogs. Pit bulls were originally bred to bait bulls for butchers (like any bull dog breed). Only later were they used for dog fighting. And that's why you can never trust a pit bull not to fight. Dog aggression is common in many bloodlines. But that has NOTHING to do with human aggression. Human aggressive pits were culled (meaning killed or removed from the breeding program) because they presented a hazard to the dog handlers. These men had to be able to pull two fighting dogs off of each other without any problem in between rounds. So the conclusion we should draw is that unlike guard dogs or cattle dogs, pit bulls should be assumed NEVER to bite a human. But clearly that's not true, so what happened?
First, many breeders following the hip-hop pit image started mixing mastiff in with their dogs to give them big heads and barrel chests. Adding protective qualities to a tenacious terrier = a very unstable, powerful dog. But you cannot possibly call this dog a pit bull. It's a mutt. But it falls into the "pit bull type" breed, and serves as a focal point for the BSL rally.
Second, over population. Poor breeding programs to fill a high demand has resulted in some very unstable dogs. It could happen to any breed--and does. But the more powerful the breed, the bigger the problem.
So that's one facet of the context. But lets look at another. Canary Island Mastiffs are powerful dogs. More so than pit bulls. Not only that, they're a primitive-style guard dog. Which means they protect first and foremost. For those familiar with the tragedy, here in the US we know the damage they can do. Should we ban them? No. They serve a purpose, represent a history, and in the grand scheme of things have done little to upset the world order. I know that#%92s not much comfort for the people they've hurt, but more people drown in buckets than are killed by presas. No one wants to ban buckets. So the question is "why pit bulls." They're not the most powerful, the most protective, etc. It's just that right now, given a large set of cultural conditions, we have a disproportionately high number of bully-breed attacks. The US has almost never condoned a ban due to such a condition. I hate to make the analogy, because dogs are not people, but crime rates differ from race to race in the US. Does that mean different races are more dangerous? No, it means that a certain cultural condition as lead to this situation. You don't ban the symptom, you ban the problem. Otherwise you set a dangerous precedent.
But all of this aside, what really bugs me about this is that it's really not that big of a deal. I mean, of course when fatal dog bites occur it's tragic. And I'd never want to trivialize how devastating it can be for a family. But your kid is more likely to get injured playing baseball than playing with a dog. Both are fun, both are good for the kid, so why not focus on the "more dangerous" activity. But no one wants to ban baseball. From the stats I could find, in 2003 19 kids died playing recreational sports. 17 people died that year from dog bites. Very few parents are raising concerns about the dangers of pee-wee football. Sure they're worried about their children's safety, but the risk is so low it's not even worth thinking about death. So why focus on dogs? Because the stories are sensational, as well as scary. And since dogs have a mind of their own we as humans want to have complete control. But the reality is that it would make more statistical sense to try and ban youth sports--if you're only concerned about safety, that is.
As for the pit bull Chihuahua comparison, that's silly. Big dogs are big dogs. Dalmatians are more dangerous that Chihuahuas, as are greyhounds and pit bulls.
Finally, after all that, I still wouldn't recommend a pit bull to most of my friends. Not because they aren't safe, but because they're A LOT of dog. My dog is the best dog for me, no doubt about it. But I walk, swim, go to the beach, and hike all the time. I need a dog who'll be there with me. I have a fairly "strong" personality. I like my dog to have the same. Not everyone shares these qualities. Maggie is not a couch dog. And without exercise she'll get destructive (just like a hunting dog). I only mention this because a lot of pro-pit bull groups tout the unrealistically wonderful qualities of the breed. They're great, don't get me wrong. But so are labs, and goldens, and Chihuahuas, depending on what you want in a best friend. If we come off as blinded by love no one will ever take us seriously.
If I could impart anything I suppose it would be to use a fair ruler to make these judgments. If you want to go by stats fine, but you need a larger time frame than 10 years, otherwise you#%92re including way too many variables. Check the last 100 years and you#%92ll find pit bulls were one of the most beloved western breeds—remember Petey from the little rascals…
Best,
Chris