Wholesome community has heated argument over dog breed safety
Wholesome community has heated argument over dog breed safety
You're viewing a single thread.
The statistics about 90% dog attacks being pitbulls is because cops can call any dog a pitbull.
Pit bull is a large category which many, completely unrelated breeds can be classified as too. Entirely different genetics, from entirely different regions, with entirely different temperaments.
Sure, if a person lumps together any dog that kinda looks like it belongs in the bully classification, you'll get pretty high statistics. Especially when you compare against singular breeds like a rottweiler.
If you look at the graphic (which states 67% not 90) "pitbull" makes up atleast 8 breeds, though like many others I've read my assumption is that they're still classifying many breeds as a singular breed.
You need to look at per-capita data by the way, even if you didn't need to separate the breeds. With simply this data, there could simply be more pitbulls in existance than other breeds.
Also, there is no dotted line on the police report for "Dog Breed". It's just a dog bite/attack/fight etc. No police department is out here compiling and retaining data on what dogs are involved in what fights, let alone doing a fucking DNA test to make sure that was a pitbull or not involved
That is true, which is why most of the reports have to have some meta-analysis on them to be useful, but where dog breed and injury type/circumstances are broadly available within the report, breeds like labrador, spaniel, chihuahua, poodle, etc (and other, reasonably recognizable breeds) the injures are almost overwhelmingly related to non-life-threatening injuries and/or unusual circumstances (feral dogs, part of packs, extreme neglect or abuse) while deaths or serious, life-threatening instances where breeds seem reasonably documented, 60%+ are from the three commonly expected breed/types, which very heavily outweighs the percent of those breeds in the population.
If type of dog commonly labeled 'pitbulls' made up 60% of the population and were involved in 60% of attacks, that would basically mean they posed no more threat than any other breed....if they only make up 1% of the population and are involved in 60% of life-threatening attacks, it's fair to say that 'breed' is extremely dangerous. It's much closer to the second example than that first. If you wanted to make a good argument, if you could identify some specific breed that is commonly identified as 'pitbull' but which arguably are 'not' involved in life-threatening attacks, that might be worth highlighting, but unfortunately, just like everyone 'calling everything that looks vaguely like a pitbull, a pitbull'....the instincts that earn then the poor reputation are just as spread out across the group as the physically recognizable traits.
Basically, the response to your comment is 'yeah, but.....' because even though you're right that we probably will never know exactly what breed caused which injury, there is an obvious enough pattern that pretending there isn't a pretty heavy relationship between dogs 'significantly mixed' with pitbull and rottweilers and serious attacks is either intentionally deceiving or ignorant.
The stats about cops being bastards is because Americans being arrested form the bulk of interaction stories.
My theory: pitbull hate is just a thinly veiled dog whistle (lol pun) for racism. The majority of pit owners are POC and the vitriol people have for those dogs is eeriely similar to what you see in hate speech. Like German Shepherds are literally bred specifically for cops to bite people professionally but you never hear anyone bitch about them, because they're associated more with authority and White America...
Here I can speak from experience. I was mauled by a dog when I was a kid. It had shitty owners that left him chained up all day no matter the weather. The breed? GSD. Not that it matters at all.
I love all dogs, not some owners.