F act: If you write an article about how to defend yourself against a dog attack and characterize the potentially attacking dog as a pit bull and title the piece “How to Defeat a Pit Bull with Your Bare Hands,” lots of people will get angry. Here are some tips on how to defend yourself against angry, easily startled, logic-ignoring, foaming-at-the-mouth pit bull lovers.
Most of the angry people will wish to loudly make the “Dog attacks are the fault of lousy dog owners, so why don’t you write an article about how to educate lousy dog owners instead of perpetuating the myth that pit bulls can’t wait to rip everyone’s faces off?” argument.
This argument is quite common, and to properly address the many people ready to argue this angle, you should stand on a car.
Once there, point out that holding a consciousness-raising session about responsible dog ownership with the owner of a dog that’s attempting to rip your face off is a lovely idea, but it does nothing to stop a dog attack already in progress. The piece that provoked so much outrage was about self-
defense, and the most common dog to have to defend oneself against happens to be the pit bull. Explain that diplomatic outreach to the pit bull community about future encounters is a secondary concern, and reiterate that your piece was about the primary concern of getting out of a dog attack alive. Try not to be too bitchy about it.
A smaller number of angry, foaming-at-the-mouth pit bull lovers will wish to make the “Merely publishing this article is a reckless act of cruelty” argument. This argument is harder to take seriously, so you don’t have to. Apparently, to some folks, mere discussion of self-defense qualifies as animal abuse. You should do your best to explain your position while guarding your face and crotch. Patiently explain that your piece wasn’t about beating the shit out of random dogs for fun and profit, but about protecting yourself—or your baby, who would make a fine snack for a pit bull—from a potentially fatal dog attack.
An even smaller number of angry, foaming-at-the-mouth pit bull lovers may spring the “Perpetuating the stereotype that all pit bulls are killers is as ignorant and bigoted as saying all black people are criminals” argument. This one’s tough, because the one-to-one equation of animals and humans of any race makes all sane people furious. Some pit bull defenders know enough to not drag race into it, voicing their displeasure at pit bulls being exemplified as a killer breed without resorting to claims of canine racism. To these folks, explain that the many widely reported and horrific attacks attributed to pit bulls have unfortunately made the dog the automatically name-checked breed in discussions of dangerous dog attacks. (Similarly, China is the auto-name-checked country in discussions of the production of melamine-tainted baby formula.) It may not be fair, but that’s life.
And dragging race into it is a deal breaker. If they continue to attack, Mace the fuckers.
A very select few of the people made furious by “How to Defeat a Pit Bull with Your Bare Hands” will begin screaming nonsensically, “By suggesting people should be afraid of pit bulls, you’re making people afraid of pit bulls, which is subconsciously creating an environment where pit bulls are subliminally encouraged to attack!” This one—while startling when it’s delivered by a screaming, foaming-at-the-mouth pit bull lover—is easy. Tackle the psychic-pit-bull defender, press the bony part of your forearm against his windpipe, and repeat (until he shuts up) “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENCOURAGE A PIT BULL ATTACK WITH THE CONTENTS OF YOUR MIND. AND IF IT IS NOT, THAT’S ONE MORE REASON IT’S A GOOD IDEA TO BE READY TO DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST THESE MIND-READING ATTACK MONSTERS.” When the psychic-pit-bull apologist has stopped struggling, remove your arm, discontinue your tackle, and go get a milk shake. 
Previously: How to Defeat a Pit Bull with Your Bare Hands.
Mike;
I’m pretty sure my point is clear enough: to claim that a breed is loving towards people is perfectly normal and unsurprising, but to claim a breed is vicious and unpredictable, etc., is to claim that things are very different from what we would expect. In the absence of rather strong evidence (evidence pointing clearly to genetics and not some other factor), we’re justified in dismissing this claim as nonsense.
“The argument here is not that pit bulls are as vicious as wolves. That’s irrelevant; people don’t regularly keep wolves in their yards and near kids or the elderly. The argument isn’t even that pit bulls are more dangerous than riding in a car. The argument is that pit bulls are more aggressive, more dangerous than other dog breeds.”
That’s an empirical claim that happens to be false. Pit bulls do better than most other breeds on temperament tests. I’m guessing if you were to defend the term “dangerous” you’d cite statistics on which breed dogs involved in serious bites are, but this has no way of separating the influence of the owners from the influence of genes. (Although relatively quick changes in how often certain breeds appear is all but conclusive evidence that the culprit is owners rather than genes; as I pointed out, we do see such changes.) Your argument hinges on certain claims about breed genetics: if you don’t care to distinguish genes from owners, that would just be sloppy. Or perhaps you would cite pit bulls’ size and strength. But other dogs are bigger and stronger.
Even if the argument wasn’t false, you seem willing to concede that riding in a car is more dangerous than interacting with a pit bull — I haven’t gone and looked up the relevant statistics, but given the quite low levels of fatal dog bites even in the numbers provided by the most extreme anti-pit bull advocates, I’m guessing you’re right to preemptively grant the point: driving is more dangerous than dogs. Perhaps you don’t realize how much you’ve given away here: if all sides agree that the “most dangerous” dog is safer than riding in a car, there’s no issue any rational person would care about.
“I think it’s hard to contest that some breeds are more dangerous than others. If you don’t think that’s true, then I don’t think it’s worth discussing the topic with me any more, because we disagree on the fundamental understanding of what a breed is.”
Actually I find it quite easy to contest, for reasons that have nothing to do with what a breed is. It’s misleading without some context to clarify that this comparison of more and less dangerous is between things which are all non-dangerous by any ordinary scale. You obviously don’t believe that to be true. But you can’t justify your position by any argument that stands up to history or statistics, and comparing the relative danger of two safe things is hardly an adequate substitute.
“I am also extremely skeptical of your notion that aggression towards humans is a totally different trait than aggression toward dogs.”
Well, you’re wrong.
“The people in these comments who keep bringing up breed bans are the pit bull advocates. It’s reminiscent of the Tea Party folks and their “death panels.” They can’t seem to imagine somebody who disagrees with them without also imagining that that disagreement takes some cartoonishly extreme form.”
Unfortunately, bans on pit bulls and other breeds exist out there in the real world. If death panels were law and killing old folks out there right now, would you still complain about bring them up?
If you think the actual policy in quite a few places, which also happens to be the apparent seriously intended goal of the Stranger, is cartoonishly extreme, you might have been more clear by distancing yourself from them. I’m reasonably certain that if a Tea Party member said some intemperate words about the President, you would blame other Tea Partiers if they didn’t distance themselves.
You cannot stop the Baconcat, strike him down and the Jesuswolf shall rise again, to ridicule you.
sure, i’d poke a dog’s eyes out if it was attacking me.. i’m not gonna breed-check it first but we can have the remains identified if it’s THAT important
@203 – Wait… you’re mocking me?! And here I thought when you called me a fuck wit that you were just trying to get into my pants. DAMN IT YOU ARE TOO SMART I HAVE BEEN FOOLED!!!!! No, I do understand that you are trying to make fun of me; I was ignoring that and trying to point out some of the many and various errors in your blathering. But it’s good that you can fall back on “I don’t care what you say, you’re dumb!” A solid defense since kindergarten.
@133/134/167 You want an explanation? Ok, the article states that the diaper was torn off and the only place actually bitten was the scrotum. Dogs clean up after their offspring. My bet would be that the child had a dirty diaper, the dogs were attempting to clean him up, one of them bit him by accident. As I am not a pet psychic, I don’t know what their intent was, but neither do you.
On a side note, what on earth was the MOTHER thinking, leaving a 6-month old on the floor, unable to move, unsupervised, in the presence of dogs (never mind the breed)?
@100 There is nothing wrong with an article about how to defend against an attacking dog. There IS something wrong about making the only dog mentioned a pit bull. That implies both that all pit bulls are dangerous, and that pit bulls are the only type (not breed) of dog that anyone should be worried about.
@206 You are relying on faulty data. The American Temperment Test is highly flawed. There are significant problems with its sampling and methodology, so much so that I would say it is basically meaningless.
The American Temperament Test was designed in 1977 in hopes of creating a uniform temperament test for dogs. Of the 75 million dogs that populate the U.S. today, only 933 are tested per year (0.001% of all dogs). The temperament data published by the group is not based upon scientific random sampling of any dog breed, but rather by volunteer owners from the animal behavior and canine training communities. See Profiling Two Sides of the Issue, edited by Bernard E. Rollin, Phd, contributions by Alan M. Beck, Sc.D. and Ledy VanKavage, Esq, Veterinary Forum, January, 2007.
Due to the base population source being so small and virtually unidentifiable temperament data being cited is objectively statistically unreliable, it is also completely misleading. It sounds nice so I can see why advocates frequently use this misleading data to point to the breed’s good temperament (“Pit bulls pass the ATTS test more often than beagles!”). Yet anyone one who has a minimal understanding of critical statistical analysis should be able to see that the ATTS “breed statistics” temperament data is essentially valueless. Just look at the poor methodology the ATTS describes for itself. See TTS Breed Statistics as of December 2008, by atts.org
Not only that but the tests administered by the ATTS are inadequate to fully measure a dog’s temperament. The 12-minute test stimulates a casual walk through a park with a range of encounters. The test focuses on stability, shyness, aggressiveness and a few other factors. According to the group, the overall pass rate (the combination of all breeds) is 81.6%. Id. The test is performed under highly controlled circumstances. Unlike the Canine Good Citizen test, the ATTS test is not performed without the dog owner present and without the dog unleashed. See AKC Obedience, akc.org. It also fails to evaluate the most basic scenario that leads to aggression: How a dog reacts when it sees another dog. See TTS Breed Statistics as of December 2008, by atts.org
A recent Cornell University Study employing generally accepted scientific methods of sampling and data analysis illuminates the fact that preaggression temperament tests are inadequate and HIGHLY unrealiable. Specifically they found a specific number of dogs demonstrating territorial, predatory and intra-specific aggression “passed” temperament tests repeatedly. See Aggressive Behavior in dogs (Canis Familiaris) that passed a temperament test. E. Christian Scarlett & Hopdt,Animal Behavior Clinic, Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (2007). This study found that accepted temperament tests cannot predict aggressive behavior requiring a social bond (owner-directed aggression) or a defendable space (territorial or stranger-directed aggression), or stimulation of a chase sequence (predatory aggression), because for the most part all that is tested on these so called temperament tests is resource guarding. The whole study is available here and would be a good read for anyone who thinks these temperament tests have any true meaning. http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/aggressive-b…
If you are unhappy with the data presented by others who are not pit fanciers, one would think it would similarly be important to understand the flawed nature of the information you are presenting. There is reliable empirical data out there which demonstrates that the APBT as well as some other breeds have an inoridnantly high prey drive, which naturally will increase animal aggression and the severity of attacks that do occur. See The Ethology and Epidemiology of Canine Aggression, by Randall Lockwood, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People, edited by James Serpell, Cambridge University Press, 1995; republished in Animal Law and Dog Behavior, Ed. David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, PhD, 1999. This goes without saying that thousands of years of animal husbandry experience should produce the common sense knowledge that when an animal has been selectively bred for generations for a specific purpose it will exhibit behaviors accordingly that, yes could be bred out over generations, but still exist.
I do not believe in breed specific legislation and I do not believe that just because it is a pit bull that a dog is bad, in fact it is not a “fault” in the breed that they have high prey drive, but rather a challenge for the responsible pit owner. The extreme denial of their breed characteristics among what otherwise would be good owners creates a climate where any danger posed by pits is compounded and heightened. What it tells me when this is the case is that while they love their animals they too are irresponsible owners. Any responsible dog owner knows not only their own dog, but the tendency of their breed and cares for and manages the dog accordingly. It is a basic concept of animal stewardship.
So you don’t think there are differences among breeds on in terms of how they regard humans? The American Kennel Club seems to.
I feel like I’m repeating myself, but if you think that breeds can differ in their attitudes toward humans, then it’s not at all ridiculous to claim that one of the differences can be in their aggression. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t think so, then I’m curious why you disagree with the AKC on this.
I don’t think I’ve given anything away. I just assumed that in any discussion of risk vs. reward, reasonable folks would agree that cars are indispensable to the way we function as a society, but dogs are not. If all cars disappeared overnight, we’d be in much worse trouble than if all dogs disappeared overnight.
The benefit of cars far outweighs the drawbacks to society. Does the benefit of pit bulls outweigh their drawbacks? Perhaps. But can other breeds provide the same or more benefit for less risk? I don’t know, but I think it’s a possibility.
That’s not how society works. Whether individuals do it or not (it seems like you don’t), society evaluates the benefits against the drawbacks. For example, is it okay to keep a great ape or a large cat in your yard? I don’t think so, for a number of reasons. By your lights, this is a non-dangerous activity, because the number of deaths by yard orangutan or porch panther are vanishingly small. By my lights (and, I would argue, by society’s), this is a prohibitively stupid activity, because the potential risk far outweighs the actual reward. We don’t get collective benefit from allowing people to keep dangerous animals in their yard.
Dogs provide benefit to society (companionship, comfort, etc). Some breeds provide more benefit than others. That’s what a breed is. That’s why a bloodhound is better at tracking, a setter is better for fowling, and a lab is great with kids. It stands to reason that some breeds also provide more risk. This notion that no breed is different from another is ridiculous to me.
I’m sure you can see that this isn’t convincing. If your word were enough to eliminate my doubts about pit bulls, then I would’ve initially responded to you with a “Thanks for your expertise” instead of an “I’m not convinced.”
Even if your word were enough to convince me, increased aggression toward dogs is still problematic. First, it’s not okay to put dogs at greater risk for no good reason. Second, most folks would intervene if their dogs were attacked, and that intervention causes spillover from aggression toward dogs to aggression toward humans.
First, I don’t agree that a breed ban is The Stranger’s aim. I have never seen that kind of advocacy in The Stranger. Then again, I tend to wait for explicit statements like “Pit Bulls should be banned” before I decide that somebody wants a ban. It seems that you don’t.
Second, yes, I might have been more clear by distancing myself from a position that I’ve seen nobody in this thread take. I might have taken the time to distance myself from the Tea Party, or from Dick Cheney, or Barack Obama, or from any number of people or positions that I don’t entirely agree with. I might have wasted a lot of my time and yours distancing myself from positions that I assume you might assume I might make. Instead I just figure that we can both ditch all the assumptions and take each other at face value.
You’re pretty quick with these assumptions about how I think. As it happens, a Tea Party member recently said some intemperate words about Senator Cantwell. I don’t think that all Tea Party members are responsible, nor do I require that they ‘distance themselves’ from the nutcase who said those things. Why not? Because I don’t assume that I know what other people are thinking.
This is not to be a dick, but to point out an inconsistency: for somebody who seems to put a lot of weight on facts, evidence and empirical process, you certainly rely a lot on speculation when it comes to me and how I think.
In any event, we’re not likely to come to agreement. You seem to expect me to take your word for things, and while I’m sure you’re an excellent person who I’d be glad to know, for the purposes of this discussion you’re an anonymous internet person to me and your unsupported word isn’t worth much. This is nothing personal: I assume you treat my anonymous internet person’s word with the same care. Then again, I’m not asking you to take anything on my word except how I think 😉
It is completely absurd and contrary to science to assert there are not differences between dog breeds.
In December of 2005 the entire issue of Genome Research, one of the most accepted scholarly journals devoted its entire issue to dog genomes. They found that there were key differences in the genomes of different breeds. And that these genetic differences are mapped such that the impact not only appearance, but overall development, genetic disease and surprise surprise BEHAVIOR! Now granted they did not include the APBT in these studies, but how is it that every other breed has a different genome, but the pit is somehow like all other dogs?
Alli_Cat;
You talk a fine game about statistical validity, etc., but the underlying reality remains that there are a large number of pit bulls, relatively few dog attacks of any kind, and changes over time as to which breed attacks most which happen on the scale of a cultural phenomenon rather than a genetic one.
So, the date point we have is that the pit bulls that get tested do well. Maybe not much, but better than your “common sense”, which is nothing of the sort. Before they became media targets pit bulls had a reputation for greater calm and stability than other dogs, and still do among responsible people who are familiar with them. That’s common sense: distilled experience.
Mike:
“So you don’t think there are differences among breeds on in terms of how they regard humans? The American Kennel Club seems to.”
If you’re going to complain about my assumption that you agree with the people whose arguments you make, do refrain from attributing things to me I very carefully did not say.
It’s not enough for you that different breeds can be more or less affectionate towards people. In order to prove that it runs from affectionate to aggressive, you need some sort of proof that a breed actually is aggressive and dangerous to humans, enough proof to overcome the presumption that all dogs’ history of domestication gives them non-dangerous, human-friendly genes. Instead you act as if any difference in temperament between breeds makes it reasonable to target a breed as innately vicious. That just doesn’t follow, and setting up stawmen will not make it follow.
“I feel like I’m repeating myself, but if you think that breeds can differ in their attitudes toward humans, then it’s not at all ridiculous to claim that one of the differences can be in their aggression. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t think so, then I’m curious why you disagree with the AKC on this.”
It’s unlikely on its face that any breed would be characterized by unpredictable aggression toward humans. Looking at the evidence makes it ridiculous.
You KNOW that the AKC is on my side here. At least be honest.
“I don’t think I’ve given anything away. I just assumed that in any discussion of risk vs. reward, reasonable folks would agree that cars are indispensable to the way we function as a society, but dogs are not. If all cars disappeared overnight, we’d be in much worse trouble than if all dogs disappeared overnight.”
Nobody I know thinks of cars this way. People gladly get in their cars for trivial reasons, and if they think twice it’s because of gas, not safety. It’s not a terrible risk assumed out of grim necessity, it’s a small enough risk they just don’t worry about it.
Maybe you’re just unusually timid.
“‘It’s misleading without some context to clarify that this comparison of more and less dangerous is between things which are all non-dangerous by any ordinary scale.’
That’s not how society works. Whether individuals do it or not (it seems like you don’t), society evaluates the benefits against the drawbacks.”
Riding a motorcycle is perfectly legal, with a license that is, unless I’m mistaken, not really any harder to get than a license to drive cars. If you’re riding a motorcycle to get from point A to point B, a car is safer. If you want to save gas, a hybrid car is safer. If you enjoy riding, just about any other kind of fun is safer.
Perhaps you meant to say that society *should* make decisions by comparing the benefits and drawbacks. The collective benefits, you add in a bit. And this *explicitly* in opposition to the idea that safe things are not rendered dangerous by being less safe than some other safe thing. Just how dystopian are you willing to get?
“For example, is it okay to keep a great ape or a large cat in your yard? I don’t think so, for a number of reasons. By your lights, this is a non-dangerous activity, because the number of deaths by yard orangutan or porch panther are vanishingly small.”
So, what was that about “I don’t assume that I know what other people are thinking”?
You might notice that when I mention how few dog attacks there are, I usually mention that there are lot of pit bulls. Maybe I’ve even mentioned it every time. I do that because it’s relevant. I also mention that dogs have thousands of years of domestication behind them, which is also relevant. Panthers have no history of domestication and far fewer interactions with people than pets do.
“By my lights (and, I would argue, by society’s), this is a prohibitively stupid activity, because the potential risk far outweighs the actual reward. We don’t get collective benefit from allowing people to keep dangerous animals in their yard.”
And what does “prohibitively stupid” mean?
“I’m sure you can see that this isn’t convincing. If your word were enough to eliminate my doubts about pit bulls, then I would’ve initially responded to you with a “Thanks for your expertise” instead of an “I’m not convinced.”
Even if your word were enough to convince me, increased aggression toward dogs is still problematic. First, it’s not okay to put dogs at greater risk for no good reason. Second, most folks would intervene if their dogs were attacked, and that intervention causes spillover from aggression toward dogs to aggression toward humans.”
I’ll admit it was somewhat lazy of me. But seriously, you have to know the drill by now: there are large numbers of pit bulls and relatively few attacks. Therefore dog-aggression doesn’t spill over into human-aggression because the tendency to human-aggression tendency just isn’t there. You know it isn’t, yet argue that (non-genetic) differences in breed safety (so small that on a per-dog basis they round to zero) could/should/do authorize a reified society to decide they don’t have the right cost/benefit ratio to exist. But you don’t support a breed ban.
I was visiting Seattle over the weekend and found a copy of The Stranger and read the article “How To Defeat Someone Made Furious….Pitbull” This is my true story: on June 8, 2009 my two dogs and I set out on our daily 1 1/2 hour walk up in the hills by my house. This is the same path, by the same houses I have done for many, many years. Only, this morning we were viciously attacked by a pit bull who charged out of an open door. 90 lbs. Smokey, the Pit went for Goldy, my 14 yr old male Chow/Shepherd, all 45 lbs of him. My screams of distress brought out 16 neighbors, some from 2 streets over. Upon realizing the the pit’s owner had no control over her dog, I tried to pull him off, lifted his back legs, hit him, etc., to no avail. I pleaded for someone to get me a hammer, shovel, knife, brick, anything I could use to stop the dog from killing my dog. Yes, I would have killed the pit. Blood, fur and tissue were flying from Goldy’s face, neck and head injuries and I shall never forget the fear in my elderly dog’s eyes as he fought for his life. This went on for 10 minutes. No one would assist in supplying me a weapon and by the time my old Goldy fell, overpowered and exhausted, on his back, the pit went in for the kill; the now unprotected jugular vein. I could no longer look and asked the ‘big guy in the sky’ to make it quick. I could not bear to watch the end. I am told that out of nowhere, the pit owner’s adult son uncrossed his arms and got over Smokey and pulled or spread his lips apart from his cheek area and the grip was released. Goldy got up and ran, limped home with me and my Weimerimer 2 year old girl puppy running, sobbing behind. Goldy survived minus his ear that couldn’t be saved and 1 month in the hospital and $2700 of medical bills. The pit owners did not pay and in fact, ran out on their rent. I now carry a knife, mace and a realization that weak, careless owners and agressive, territorial dogs are more common than I had previously known. I apprciated your article. When the attack is happening and you are weaponless, your suggestings might be the only chance you have to save your life, a child’s, or in my case my old senior citizen Goldy. He is now 15 years old and continues to like nothing better than to take his daily walk up the hill. I hope this helps the ridiculous assholes understand it could happen to them. What would they do if confronted with this nightmare?
Signed, A dog lover
@209: Oh, that’s what you thought you were doing.
Well, at least you tried!
215-That is terrible! I posted in a previous comment that dog aggression is the defining characteristic of the breed. As I think about this issue more and more, (I am dog person!) the more I am convinced that pit bulls should probably become a rare species. Here is the history of the explosion in the breed’s popularity as I see it:
-Dog fighting becomes increasingly popular.
-Pit bulls are glorified by rap stars, ect. and are thus seen as tough status symbols.
-More people begin using them as guard dogs, and do not control breeding, thus population explosion.
-Many pit bulls are now available in shelters.
-Bleeding heart animal lovers adopt them, to prove how much they love all dogs, even those that are “misunderstood”.
-Even more people choose to adopt pit bulls because they are now considered cool to own even in “liberal circles”.
-All pit bulls still harbor the trait for amplified aggression, no matter who owns them!
Because dog fighting is illegal, (ie what the breed was bred for) there is no point in keeping the breed in it’s current state going. I think instead of banning pit bulls, pit bull owners should be required BY LAW to spay or neuter their pet so that eventually the breed goes extinct. There will still be plenty of other dogs without the tendency for violence available to adopt, believe me!
People domesticated wolves and then expect the “dogs” to be nice?
Alli_Cat–
Dazzling statistics. I love it. But, wait a minute, why shouldn’t I be allowed to own a Chimpanzee? Chimps are misunderstood, and very sweet. And its not like they ever just go beserk for no reason and rip someone’s face off. Oh, wait…
For those of you who have never seen a pit bull attack in person, words can’t do it justice. They just do so much damage, so fast. And remember what these dogs were first bread to do–fight real bulls and fricking bears. No lie. Look it up.
@93: Right on, 2dog!
I’ll admit, I don’t read the stranger on a regular basis. But one day my boyfriend comes home and tells me there was an article about how to defend yourself against a pit bull. I was a little mad, but honestly, you had good information if you’re the aggressive type. But theres this saying, don’t know if you (Mr. Schmader) have heard it, but it goes “you cant fight fire with fire.” Sure, if a dog is coming after you, you have to protect yourself. but giving out this information telling people its okay to bust a dogs knees? really?
Anyway, I picked up the next issue of the stranger on my way home from Redmond one day and was reading this article. Lets go through how to defeat a pit bull lover
1. You make a lovely point in this one. Roundaboutly ignoring the statement from us dog lovers. Aggressive dogs are produced by being raised in poor environments where they don’t have social interaction or they don’t get enough exercise (yes, this CAN effect how a dog behaves). If you put an aggressive dog in a proper home with and educated owner, the aggressiveness would be eradicated. So many people get attacked by pit bulls because honestly, humans are dumb and don’t know how to train them. They are very smart dogs who want to learn, if you just let them try. If you act properly around a dog, you will never have to worry about being attacked.
2. I don’t agree with the statement that just publishing it is an act of cruelty. But it can lead to that. This goes back to the whole, humans are dumb theory. If you tell someone that its okay to break a dogs knees when its attacking you, i guarantee there will be at least one person who will get overly scared when approached by a pit bull and just go for the knees. I understand your intentions but you have to understand that not the entire population is as bright as you, Mr. Schmader.
3. yes, race and breed are two different things, but its discrimination none the less. I have met more chihuahuas that bite than pit bulls, but just because they are small, people don’t give a shit. ITS STILL AN AGGRESSIVE DOG YOU IDIOTS. You state that pit bulls are “the automatically name-checked breed in discussions of dangerous dog attacks.” “It may not be fair, but that’s life.”
I beg to differ. Yes, pit bulls are known as a dangerous dog, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. Education is the main thing here.. not just about the breed but about how to train them and how to act around them.
4. Ahh, my favorite one of all. Quoting from your article, “A very select few of the people made furious by ‘How to Defeat a Pit Bull with Your Bare Hands’ will being screaming nonsensically, ‘By suggesting people should be afraid of pit bulls, you’re making people afraid of pit bulls, which is subconsciously creating an environment where pit bulls are subliminally encouraged to attack!” You think it is impossible to encourage a dog to attack you with your mind? Have you ever owned a dog, Mr. Schmader? If you have, you would know that what you’re thinking, and you’re state of mind have EVERYTHING to do with how a dog will react around you. If you are afraid, the dog will sense that and feed off of it. If he or she is already an aggressive dog, then they are going to take advantage of the opportunity because that is how they work. They have a pack mentality and when someone new comes in that has an issue, they pick at them.. usually until they straighten out, or they go away (speaking about dog on dog interactions). Same goes with people. If you are not this dogs owner and you are approached by it, the main thing is to stay calm and assertive. You need to act as a pack leader. Physically and mentally, because dogs can indeed sense this nervousness in humans. If all else fails just don’t pay any attention to the dog. How hard is that?
All in all, Mr. Schmader, if you are going to write another article like this, make sure you leave out the specifics.. it just pisses people off. Why couldn’t you just say dog attack? and what about cats?! Ive had more cats attack me. that shit is scary.
Also, there are a lot of people out there who own pit bulls who do not attack other people or other dogs, including me. I have a two year old American Staffordshire Terrier and she wouldn’t attack a person in a million years. She wont even rough house.. shes too scared because she had been used as a bait dog to train other pits how to fight. The issue is not the dogs, its the people who make them do terrible things. Most pit bulls are kind, loving, and loyal. Just give them a chance. Just a rule of thumb, don’t trust the dog if you don’t trust the owner. Heres a group on facebook to check out. http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Detroit…
The first article published was a lousy passive aggresive move for the Stranger. I worked for a Save a Pit woman in CA, and true, there are tons of attacks and news stories that say the dog attacking was a Pit Bull. She owns 3 pits and has a baby. No attacks. In reality, the media doesn’t know SHIT. Most of the “Pit Bulls” are actually American Bulldogs, Boxers, other mixes and breeds that reporters label as a Pit. I was bit by a Boxer being walked by a senior man while on a run, and he tried to rip my thigh off. I hope that other liberal publications can see the sense in producing an article aimed at “protecting yourself against poorly trained attack dogs owned by lousy mean people”, instead of generating animosity towards a specific misunderstood breed.
@219 I think you maybe did not read fully want I posted because clearly I was stating that the pit advocates were misusing bad statistics and relying on inadequate temperment tests to support their “pits wouldn’t hurt a flea,” argument. I believe they are dangrous, I do not think they should be “banned,” but I think they should be managed appropriately by their owners, always on leash, muzzled if necessary, etc. They are not just any dog.
I have personally witnessed a pit bull attack. My story is much the same as the previous commenter. I have a yorkie now, but the dog that was attacked by the pit was my family great dane. He was 173 pounds and a formidable dog, could have taken down almost anything or anyone if need be, but was no match for a pit. The pit came out of no where in an on a city street and grabbed him straight by the neck and would’ve killed him had he been able to get him on his back. It took not 1, not 2, but 3 bystanders to get the dog off. This was only accomplished by throwing all their weight on the dog and choking him with his collar until he could not breath and had to release. It lasted over 7 minutes. Typical dogs snap and release, pits grab, hold and shake with such tenacity it is almost unbelievable unless you have physically seen it.
@223 Typical dogs (including pit bull types) do snap and release, depending on circumstances. A startled dog, a food or toy aggressive dog, a roughhousing dog, etc. of any breed might all bite in this way.
However if trying to ‘kill’ something (toy, small animal, other dog, human) ANY dog will exhibit the ‘grab, hold, shake’. I’ve seen my grandfather-in-law’s chihuahua do it, I’ve seen labs do it, I’ve seen puppies of all shapes and sizes do it. Terriers in particular (including pit bull types) were bred to do this because it was the quickest way to kill the rodents terriers were bred to hunt.
I do not mean to say that pit bulls are not dangerous, of course thay are. Their power and size make them so, notwithstanding any possible aggression issues or crappy owners. My point is that claiming they are categorically different from any ‘typical’ dog isn’t true. Their jaws aren’t formed differently that any other dog’s (in other words, they DO NOT lock). If going for a kill, they DO NOT attack or cause damage differently than another dog of comparable size or strength.
@224 I am sorry but I have to disagree. I do not deny that I disfavor pit bulls, this is for many reasons, but I also disfavor breed specific legislation and that sort of thing and favor responsible ownership. Responsible ownership includes knowing your breed and appropriatly managing it.
A pit bull is more prone to dog agression, please note I am not saying human aggression, and has a unique attack style. This is not the dogs fault rather it comes from selective breeding. Animal behavior/veterinary communities, legal communities and even most pit bull communities accept this (see pitbulllovers.com, pitbull-chat.com, and others)accept this. The only people that do not are a handful of vitriolic pit owners that clearly are so in denial they cannot possibly be responsible owners to their pets.
The attack on my dog is pretty telling. My dog was over 170 pounds, much more muscular and clearly in better condition, but the pit easily dominated him. While environment and ownership play a role, these dogs are genetically more adept to fighting. It is well documented by humane groups and historians that to excel in dogfighting, pit bulls were selectively bred to conceal warning signals prior to an attack unlike other breeds. For instance, a pit bull may not growl, bare its teeth or offer a direct stare before it strikes. Unlike all other dog breeds, pit bulls are also disrespectful of traditional signs of submission and appeasement. Please see Dog Bite Prevention for Law Enforcement and Other First Responders, by Randall Lockwood, PhD. It is also well accepted that while yes many dogs will, bite, grip and shake at times, a pit bull has a unique sense of gameness and tenacity and will hold longer. A review of medical case studies shows that while pits did not attack humans with as great of frequency as other breeds the severity of their attacks was much greater. In fact it is comperable to shark attacks. Please see Pit Bull Attack: Case Report and Literature Review, by Steven F. Vegas, MD, Jason H. Calhoun, MD, M. Eng., John Mader, MD, Texas Medicine Vol. 84. Further evidence that their attacks are somewhat unique in quality comes from the pit bull community. http://www.pbrc.net/breaksticks.html
Why is it that break sticks should only be used on pit breeds but are harmful to other breeds? Hmmm it is because their attacks are unique!!! Sure there bite style is like other terrier breeds, but their strength and tenacity sure isn’t. My dane was 3 times the size and in terms of stregth probably 3 times stronger that that pit bull, but he did not have the adept fighting skill required to take one.
I have a theory that all pit owners that do not think their dogs are any different than others will eventually learn they are. They will learn by setting them up to fail, by not managing some of their unique qualities, then something will happen at a dog park or on a city street and they will cry “but she was like any other dog…” And it will be their dog that pays for their ignorance and denial.
A cheesy little poem for our zealous pit bull owners straight from a pit advocacy website…
A Day at the Park
He is just like other dogs I would always say; He loves to go to the dog park to play every day.
Everyone loves him there, so it’s ok; My dog won’t fight–he wasn’t raised that way.
But then one day, right before dark, A troubled young man came into the park.
He had by his side the biggest dog I’d ever seen, And unfortunately for us, both were quite mean.
We asked very nicely if they would just go; The dog answered with a snarl and the man with a harsh “NO!”
Well his dog was a terror, threatening to all; Then he started a fight with a Lab over a ball.
They fought pretty hard and the man would not intervene; Then here comes my dog and pushes right in between.
He grabbed that big dog by the throat and thrashed him around; And with one quick jerk threw him down on the ground.
The Lab was able to escape; I heard everyone cheer; But my dog was now in a frenzy and would not let go or me near.
When he finally let go, what I saw stopped my heart; That big mean dog twice his size had been torn apart.
The authorities were called, the big dog was now dead; But they didn’t take the big dog; they took my dog instead.
We all tried to explain that my dog saved the day; But because he got so mad he was taken away.
You see my dog was a Pitbull and they don’t cut other dogs any breaks; One small incident is all that it takes.
A dog had died; And though he hadn’t started the fight, My dog finished it and was held responsible for what happened that night.
He was deemed a danger to all and sentenced to death; And I hold him now as he takes his last breath.
It’s my fault that my dog is being killed today; Please listen for a moment to what I am going to say:
Everyone warned me about his potential to fight; I said it won’t happen, I am raising him right
And now my dog is paying the ultimate price; Because I was stubborn and wouldn’t take the advice He only did what he was bred to do; Learn from our story; don’t let it happen to you.
@225 And that is your right. I try to neither favor nor disfavor any particular breed of dog, though in general I prefer large to small. As far as BSL and responsible owners, we are in complete apgreement.
I know pit bulls can be dog aggressive, but so can other breeds. Some pit bulls are fine with other dogs. Breed or type definitely plays a part in their behavior, but so does their environment and individual temperament. If every pit bull was as dog aggressive as you seem to think, they couldn’t be used as bait dogs. The fact that dogfighters use them as both (same breed, different training and temperament) tells you that the breed exhibits a range of behavior and aggression, just like any other type of dog.
For the record, I am not a pit bull owner, vitriolic, foaming at the mouth, or otherwise. I am a Biology student with an emphasis on animal behavior, I volunteer regularly at my local shelter, and plan on entering vet school.
As far as your personal experience, Great Danes back in the day were war/guard dogs. It is only fairly recently that they have been selected for gentleness, making them suitable as housepets. Breed had less to do with the outcome of that encounter than training and temperament. The pit wanted (and possibly had been trained) to fight, your dog didn’t, the pit won.
Gameness and tenacity, meanwhile, are by no means traits limited to pit bulls. Terriers and bulldogs are BOTH stubborn by nature, and any working dog will show gameness. Gameness in and of itself has nothing to do with fighting or aggressiveness, it just means that the dog will do what it takes to get the job done. Take a look at the PBRC’s comments on gameness. http://www.pbrc.net/faq.html
The shark attack argument has no scientific basis. I’m sorry, but it’s just dumb. Show me a dog with multiple rows of serrated teeth and I might be willing to take that claim seriously.
You have totally misread the PBRC’s comments on breaksticks. Let me quote you a few salient points.
” As terriers, pit bulls will usually bite and hold. Contrary to popular myth, this is not some kind of special pit bull behavior; it is merely terrier behavior.”
“Do not attempt to use a break stick on other dog breeds.
Attempting to use a break stick on other breeds could result in serious injury to the person using the stick. Since other breeds will unpredictably snap and bite instead of getting a grip, you are far more likely to be bitten. You also should not attempt to use a break stick with other terriers. While all terriers grab and hold, pit bulls are far less likely to redirect their bite on an intervening human than, say, a Jack Russell Terrier. For the same reason, you also need to be very careful when separating your pit bull from another breed. Your pit bull will probably not bite you, but you might get bitten by the other dog.”
Not using a breakstick on other breeds has NOTHING to do with hurting other kinds of dogs, it has everything to do with that other dog biting YOU.
I agree that clueless or soft-hearted urban/suburbanites who take in pits or other large, powerful dogs can be as dangerous as the gangbanger types. The latter actively cultivates aggresison, while the former doesn’t take into account the special needs of their animals. Either way the results are disastrous. I fully believe in the maxim, “Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.”
Again my bottom line is that while dogfighting and therefore dog aggression are undeniably part of the pit bulls history, they are not the be-all, end-all of the breed. Registered APBTs, ASTs, and SBTs have been breeding away from this for a long time. Fighters, thugs, and backyard breeders have kept dog aggression in and in some cases ADDED instability (read: possibility of human aggression) to the breeds.
Be aware of your dog’s breed as well as its individual temperament, and treat it accordingly.
I love you lots, and thought this was a prime piece 🙂
More fuel for the fire. Cover story on the newspaper here in Tampa about a Pit Bull mauling a week-old baby to death. Brutal. Stupid teenage mother.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.asp…
ARGH I HATE YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS, I ESPECIALLY HATE YOU BECAUSE I HATE ANYONE WHO LEGITIMATELY ATTEMPTS TO TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM A BATSHIT CRAZY DOG, HOW DARE THEY TRY AND PROTECT THEIR LIVES FROM THESE NOBLE CREATURES? IF YOU DON’T WANT YOUR FACE RIPPED OFF BY A PIT BULL THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD QUIT GIVING IT NEGATIVE VIBES BECAUSE DOGS CAN SMELL FEAR AND THEREFORE IT’S YOUR FAULT IF A BEAUTIFUL, NOBLE PIT BULL CHEWS YOU INTO BITS, YOU PROBABLY DESERVE IT FOR WRITING AN ARTICLE SO HORRIBLY RACIST, BECAUSE DOGS ARE TOTALLY A RACE, RIGHT?
As the owner of two pit bulls, I don’t really see what the issue is in learning to defend yourself from a dog attack. I do take issue, however, with singling out a specific type of breed. It’s an obvious attempt to garner readers and simply perpetuates a negative stereotype of a dog, instead of providing genuine facts.
I’ve been bitten by dogs before: once by a golden retriever, twice by pomeranians and once by a german shepard. I’ve had worse injuries from cats, actually. But in my three years of owning my two pitbulls, they have never even nibbled at me or been aggressive towards other dogs.
We can never fully understand what is going through a dog’s mind when he looks at the world. A simple gesture, even from a child, could be looked at as aggressive provocation. This is why, no matter what your breed, owners need to be diligent and watchful over their animals.
Also, I didn’t get these dogs because they make me look “badass” or because I saw them in rap videos. I rescued them from the Colorado ban and I would do it all over again if I could. Best dogs ever.
I hate pit bulls. And the people who love them.
To those who have not seen a pit bull attack in person…. my dog and I were ambushed by a pit bull. It took less than 5 seconds for the pit bull to rip an 8 inch gash in my dog’s side, pull his skin away and peel it back, and require him to undergo a several hours long surgery. Pit bulls were bred to attack other dogs. If you don’t even recognize that, go to hell.
You only missed one point :). That pit bull owners now do not even want people to be able to defend themselves from attack. They want anyone who hurts a pit bull while defending themselves to be charged with animal cruelty.
@ 211 A very well written comment and pertinent However you made one mistake only. You are absolutely correct about the ATTS test except on one point. It was designed by a sporting dog owner to test dogs suitability for that sport and for no other purpose. It is now being used for other purposes but it still rewards aggression and penalizes timidity in dogs. Which makes it clearly unsuitable as a means of testing a dogs suitability as a family pet, in fact just the opposite.
Pit Bulls are sweet dogs. Micheal Vick’s were rehabilitated (many of them). Some dog owners train them to be aggressive. Unfortunate, but true. But agression isn’t the sole trait of the breed.