They are pretty friendly and loving overall, their problem comes in that when they do lose their cool they lose it completely and go 100% on kill mode without clear and obvious warning beforehand. And when you combine that with people poorly taking care of them or training them to be aggressive bad things happen.
I wouldn't have them around young kids because of that, if they accidentally hurt the dog like pulling on its ear wrong it isn't likely going to warn them, it will take it until the moment it decides it is too much and then possibly go for a full force bite on what seems like a reaction which can be deadly for a child. They also can be extremely protective, so if the dog perceives kids playing as a fight it might attack one of them thinking it is protecting another from harm.
Now don't get me wrong, it still isn't super common and I would have no problem owning one myself, provided there are no kids younger than teens. But it isn't a dog for someone to buy and then get annoyed at and ignore or not train well or get frustrated and hit them which can make them aggressive. People who take good care of their dogs will have a great dog, people who don't take good care of their dogs is risking a small chance of creating a time bomb.
They are actually super sweet dogs in most cases. But once they get going, they are super strong and don’t give up. With most dogs you can separate them when they bite but a pit bull won’t let go.
Years ago we fostered a lot of different dogs and the pit bulls were some of the nicest. But you have to pay attention to their strength. For example playing tug-o-war may end up in a shoulder injury because the pit bull will pull really hard.
Another problem is that a lot of idiots like pit bulls and make them aggressive.
The breed is great. They're just dogs; far less bitey statistically than many other breeds. The owners it attracts are the worst.
And the breed is super strong. When encouraged to be hyper-territorial and aggressive, the results are super-bad. A chihuahua bite should be followed with a doctor's visit; a pitty bite generally requires stitches.
Which dog bite statistics are you referring to? I would be interested to see data that contradicts these findings:
---
Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution
> Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds.
> family dogs represent a more significant threat than often is realized and that, among the breeds identified, pit bulls are proportionally linked with more severe bite injuries
Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: a case series at a level one pediatric trauma center
> Pediatric dog bites span a wide range of ages, frequently require operative intervention, and can cause severe morbidity. Dog familiarity did not confer safety, and in this series, Pit bulls were most frequently responsible.
I've seen the video where all these methods were tried to no avail, so I don't have much faith in them. The safest solution is to put the animal down, but of course you have to have something on hand to do that. A 4x2 to the temple should do it. That'll end the aggressor and save the victim.
"Should", maybe, but I've seen a pretty disturbing video where a pit bull took a lot more than one hit... it was multiple minutes of hits. And it only let go after it died, I've never seen anything like it.
I took a few pit mixes out of the local humane society last summer for "Doggy Day Out", basically an opportunity for dogs who need new homes to get exposure to the community and get away from the kennel for a few hours, and they were universally friendly, sweet dogs.
There's some selection bias, obviously, but their reputation is definitely overblown.
I was at a friend's place with some others from school, we were about 14-15 years old, his family had this seemingly sweet pitbull, always wanting to be pet, super playful but kind. That day it attacked one of our classmates, out of the blue, we were sitting on the backyard, the dog playing with some rope toys, brought it to us sitting, this guy picked up the toy to throw it and before he could even started the motion this pitbull jumped on his face and started attacking.
It was so jarring, unexpected, and brutal that I got traumatised for life from pitbulls, I don't like to be close to them, don't like when I'm biking and there's one without a muzzle being walked around, and I don't want to pet one as much as it can look super friendly and calm. Seeing how fast it could turn into a murder machine even when growing up in a loving family that never trained it to be a guard/attack dog, and probably never treated the dog badly, made me very anti-pitbulls.
Most dog attacks in the country I grew up in are from pitbulls, including a few kids killed every year, the statistics don't lie. The breed requires people who aren't assholes so it doesn't become dangerous, I don't trust owners to do that, even more when it's a breed for "macho" guys to show off at the same time.
I got bit by a dog a while ago and the thing that really woke me up was how unexpected it was. I generally think that I'm fairly observant and empathetic with animals. All B.S. aside I genuinely think I can tell when a dog is scared. The dog that bit me though, totally out of the blue. I saw it. No body language, no nothing - and I walked by it and next thing I knew it jumped out and bit my hand.
Since then if I see a strange dog and the option is there I keep plenty of distance between it and me no matter what I take to be it's state.
If we are to be pedantic I should have defined it as "most dog attacks causing serious enough harm to be reported" but I don't think it was needed to communicate the same thing.
They are banned in Ontario, Canada for a good reason and banned in UK for the same reasons.
The only time my dog was ever randomly attacked was a pitbull and you quickly learn talking to other dog owners how common this is. Nothing clears out a dog park like a pit bull showing up.
The ban isn't meaningfully enforced in much of the province [1], I see them a lot. I used to live in Ottawa, and their official site directly states "The City of Ottawa does not enforce the provincial ban on pit bulls" [2]. For those (legitimately) interested in a Canadian perspective on breed-specific legislation, there's a documentary by CBC's Fifth Estate on the subject [3].
Yep, that's why my dog still got attacked by one in Toronto. It's poorly enforced. The dog sprinted across an entire field without making a sound and pinned my dog hard by the throat.
Ontario also tried to remove the pitbull ban, after the usual "it's owners the owners" protests, but a bunch of attacks happened again so they reinstated it.
I suspect the reasons are (generously) keeping them out of the hands of people who would treat them poorly and perpetuate the stereotypes, or (less generously) ignorance and fear.
How they're raised makes a big difference, but natural instinct is natural instinct. It's just like how chihuahuas were bred to be small, but pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs.
There are plenty of statistical studies out there that pit bulls specifically cause both a significant plurality of dog bites and significantly worse injuries than other dog breeds.
The word "pit" in "pit bull" refers specifically to a dog fighting arena where dogs are supposed to aggressively fight each other in a duel, possibly until one of them dies.
"pit bull" refers to a dog breed that was optimized for its performance (=more aggressive and dangerous) in the "pit".
Some dogs races are known to attract people who have social and or mental issues.
Not all pit bulls are dangerous, in the right hands they are some of the nicest dogs I have seen, but yeah.
Personally I don't judge dogs anymore by their races but by their owner, I found it to be much more accurate.
And on a sidenote, this owner really doesn't inspire me much. When she say it was disheartening to loose this dog because she paid for it with her own money... That's the kind of things I hear from the low life with pits.
The nanny-dog thing is a myth made up by a breeder and shared through basically Facebook chain letters. There is no historical basis that pits ever were recommended to watch babies.
Honestly, all the ones I've known have been super sweet dogs. I can never quite bring myself to fully trust them, but frankly I never fully trust any dog.
Hm, that's a good point. I totally did not think of that as a possibility. But what are the chances? I mean, it's just a cute little pit bull we're talking about here! It's not as if it's even a big dog, like a golden retriever, or a nice friendly alsatian.
There is a self-selecting bias with pit bulls. People who buy and raise pit bulls often want a “mean” “tough” dog, so that’s what they get. You get a loving sweet pit bull if you raise them in a loving sweet way. Dogs are like children; they are very observant and pick up on even the tiniest of cues.
Although, like people, some dogs (of all different breeds) are born more aggressive. That can usually be corrected with training. It’s mostly nurture, and part nature.
Not really. Even "old school" working catch dogs in this breed may require a break stick to get the dog to release game. In addition, the dogs are strong.
And that's really the crux of the problem.
Dogs will be dogs. They can be the nicest animal on the planet, but at some point a dog will bite you--maybe you did something stupid, maybe the dog accidentally got underfoot and got kicked, maybe the dog is just sick, maybe something agitated the dog, whatever. A bite will happen. The problem with pit bulls is that when they bite the damage is much more problematic than with other breeds.
And this is the real issue. Because of their strength, pit bulls (and a small number of other breeds) account for a disproportionate amount of deaths and hospitalizations relative to other breeds.
It also doesn't help that these types of dogs are disproportionately owned by jackasses.
Because getting people to be responsible has worked as a solution for anything ...
<checks notes>
Ah. Exactly ... Never.
This is a breed that should be allowed to die out. They were bred specifically for fighting, and there is no good reason for them to exist. There are plenty of other dog breeds with equivalent characteristics that aren't such a danger to people.
Almost all dogs were bread to fight or hunt. There is some exceptions of course, but it’s the majority. If we were to kill every single one of them, we’d be left with chihuahua.
My dog bit me accidentally while playing, a few times. Every time, he apologized. (That is: he stopped playing, made a characteristic sound, and licked me to make sure I was OK.)
I remember when I was a kid one of the cats we had - who at that point was very much not a kitten and blind to boot - had gotten into a tussle with some strange cat. I just reached in to the melee and grabbed our cat. He promptly bit my and - or rather he started to. Didn't even break the skin. Just immediately stopped and I swear to God if a cat could say, "Oh, I'm sorry I thought you were someone else" that's what he would have said.
Pit bulls are more likely to bite and when they do, they hold the bite much longer than basically any other dog breed and they often require outside intervention to stop the second bite.
Once the dog has demonstrated itself to be dangerous, there is not much you can do other than euthanasia. The worst thing you can do is bring it to a shelter and let an unsuspecting family take the dangerous dog in. A lot of trouble would be saved by choosing a similar looking dog breed that isn't as aggressive or dangerous.
You talking like a bite must happen. No it's not. Source: myself, we ve had a dozen of dogs. Among them : rotweiler, new foundlands, montagne de pyrénées, terrier, and dozens of chihuahua and spitzs
Ingenuous question. You know they have a bad reputation.
The main problem with pit bulls, AIUI, is that they can be aggressive towards other dogs. Also, assholes buy them (due to their reputation) and then encourage aggressive behavior.
I've met some pit bulls owned by nice people and the dogs were super friendly and especially very tolerant of children.
I used to have a pitbull/boxer mix and she was the sweetest dog. She had the longest tongue and would do big yawns and I'd just stick my hand in her mouth and grab her tongue and she'd shake her head and look confused. It was pretty funny. Most dogs are nice if they live in good homes.
Nothing stopping them from being great with kids. All dogs can be great with kids.
Pit bulls have a long history as family dogs -- they're loyal, affectionate, and incredibly gentle with kids. The whole 'nanny dog' reputation exists for a reason.
My pit mix was actually a therapy dog for autistic children through a program at a local hospital in Austin. The kids would read to her while she cuddled up next to them, putting her paw on them gently when they were nervous or frustrated. The program was designed to help the kids build confidence by providing a social interaction where they wouldn't feel judged. And she was great at it. It was the highlight of her week getting to go to the therapy center.
I've had a lot of dogs in my life, and I've never had one more sweet or gentle than she was.
But look, any dog can be awful or wonderful. That comes down to the owner, the environment, and the individual animal way more than the breed -- and honestly, the whole concept of 'breeds' is a bit silly to begin with. But I get that people need to classify things. It's just dumb.
The reason they have the “nanny dog reputation” is because a breeder made it up in the 1970s and then it caught on through shares and likes through Facebook in the late 2010s.
There is no historical basis for the contents of what was basically a chain letter.
30 days later they canceled the ABM company account and deleted all the associated users along with the Apple ID which I used to log into a testing device, which now became a fairly expensive paperweight: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47516266
Are you seriously comparing the number of people? That's silly. It's the amount paid per person. You pay so much in gas, I pay so much for my EV. For the same amount of driving, I am paying more than you do. That's the problem.
99.9% of use cases of EVs can charge at home/work/shop, don't need separate infrastructure, logistics and supply chains for delivery of electricity. There is a very small fraction of EV trips that need charging on the go. The vast majority of trips are under 3 (or 5 miles).
Well no it does change the point, because the place where the car resides when the owner is at home is less likely to be near a power socket unless its in a garage or the homes driveway. I can't realistically charge my EV from a socket if its on the street.
In NYC that would be the street. The great conundrum of ev's. People that have access to home-charging, worry about range. The one's that mostly sit idling in traffic, don't have access to charging.
> In NYC that would be the street. The great conundrum of ev's.
Most streets have street lighting and electricity, easy to add chargers to lamp posts. NYC probably hasn't heard of street lighting yet?
> The one's that mostly sit idling in traffic, don't have access to charging.
I think it would be an impressive feat of engineering to charge cars while they are on the move. I like how you think, cars are mostly idling in traffic, we can consider them as stationary, and charge cars while they idle!
Parking is not assigned, sometimes you got to drive around for 20 minutes to find a spot to park over-night and its not guaranteed to be next to a street light.
By idling in traffic, I meant that we would love ev's since most of the time we are just wasting gas and fuming up our own neighborhoods.
> This is yet again a very US-centric view where you assume people are living in house with a garage.
It is a US-centric view to think that the rest of the world is hunter gatherer tribes. Most people live in some kind of constructed building which has electricity, indoor plumbing, a place to park a car. Before that building is built, the first infrastructure that is ready is electrical, without which most of the tools required for building a home do not work.
A garage is not a sine qua non for EV charging. A place to park is. If a person is buying a car, they would've already figured out a place to park. That place is right next to a building with electricity unless you are sleeping in the woods.
I don't understand why people think that running a cable (a few feet) from the nearest building to a car is impossible.
We need grid scale batteries anyways to capture excess solar (curtailment) at zero cost, or for a profit. Put these in distributed locations that can also charge cars and we solve 2 problems at once.
reply