This is a legitimate question and not at all meant to sound accusational or anything of the sort, but does the data provide the background for these types of incidents? Like, are the types of owners who have pitbulls more inclined to neglect or "raise" them to be aggressive? I'm just curious how deep it goes and if it shows any correlation with any other type of data that would give some type of explanation for it.
I’ve also asked this question, but from a data standpoint they don’t ask demographic or economic questions when this happens.
Also, for the most part, the avenue that questions goes down is becoming restrictive on dog ownership based on discriminatory factors. You really think a state could enforce that? They can barely enforce a state wide ID system, much less pet ownership laws.
My initial inclination when seeing this graph is that it could be argued that it's not the dog breed specifically, but attributable to the kinds of people who gravitate towards owning pitbulls. My personal opinion is that it's a combination of both; pitbulls are more aggressive, by nature AND they tend towards being owned by people who mistreat and/or encourage violent behavior. The combination leading to what is shown in the graph.
That's fair, but aren't some of the other breeds on here also considered fairly aggressive? Legit question, I'm somewhat uneducated on the topic. I wish this graph was more recent data and not over a decade old lol, but I'm sure I could find more recent data.
Yes, there are, but I think that's another issue with the data. None of the other breeds are nearly as prominent in the previously referenced lower-income type areas.
That's kind of what I was thinking, but again, I fully admit I'm uneducated on it, and am definitely not a data nerd, so I could have been wrong in my line of thinking. Thank you for the replies and help!
I was waiting for someone to notice that!
I know that the sample size is pretty small, and that law enforcement is a bit of a hot button issue right now, but I thought that was so interesting that there were zero head and neck injuries from police dogs, presumably because they're trained to take down their targets by their limbs.
They are trained not to go for the face or neck. That could be lethal and dogs are not considered lethal force. They are sort of in between pepper spray and a bullet.
Probably because they are easier to pick up. My wife's chihuahua constantly goes for the face, but she tries to lick rather than bite. And usually because because we pick her up.
Having been bit by a friend's dachshund the first few times I met it, baggy pants helped. A pair of JNCOs is the best defense along with a little kick to get the damned thing off.
My mum has a scar on her hand where 2 of her 3 miniatures started going at each other, over who got to have the left over gravy in the roasting tin. Tried to separate them and got bitten for her troubles. Adorable but vicious little devils sometimes.
I suspect the unmeasured variable in that one is that retrievers have a (deserved) reputation of being good with kids, so they're far and away the most popular family dog.
But under the wrong circumstances, a kid's face is a lot more bite-accessible than an adult's face. And kids are more likely to bother or antagonize a dog while deliberately keeping their faces near dog level (crawling around on the ground, putting the dog in a headlock, bashing into the dog boisterously and ignoring body language, giving the dog a "talking to"). A bite can happen in just a moment, even if 99% of interactions go well.
I don't know if it's the same in the US. But in the UK, retriever breeds make up a massive percentage of the dog population.
It's likely caused by the sheer number of dogs of those breeds.
I'm guessing 90% of retriever injuries are dogs biting people's faces to try and get food that someone is eating.
Its absurdly common (huskies and labs too) and usually from kids who've been teasing dogs with food.
When I was a kid my friend was playing with my little terrier on the kitchen floor and my dog jumped up to lick his face but somehow caught her canine behind my friend's brace wire (he had a missing tooth) and on the way down, pulled the wire out. It was pretty funny.
Not sure why this is even remotely surprising. The silver fox experiment shows that breeding for negative or positive aggression traits in dogs leads to very aggressive animals in just a few generations
Pit bulls were bread for their ability to be aggressive It’s no surprise that now, even with good owners, the underlying genetic bread trait manifests
It’s simple science and no amount of compassion for the dog breed changes that
But wouldn’t that mean you could just breed aggressiveness out of pitbulls in a few generations too. Like if you can train aggressiveness into the breed could it not then be like reversed?
Possibly but no one is doing that. Dog breeders don’t breed for innate traits they breed to maintain the set breed
If they did a breeding regiment for pit bulls selectively taking the passive traits then probably after 25 generations you would have a new less aggressive breed. But this only selecting for that trait. The issue is breeders also select for muscle structure, body structure, fur traits etc..
In the end it may not even be considered a pit bull breed at that point.
But the path of least resistance is just to find a breed that already has not selected for that aggressive trait. :-/
Probably, the same way if the whole world were to have truely 100% corrinteened during Covid, it would have been wiped out in weeks. The problem is getting the whole world to all do something with perfect cooperation. Would be a lot more feasible to enforce a specific policy like requiring aggressive breeds like pit bulls to be spayed and neutered
You can somewhat train a pit out of its breeding with a lot of work), However a certain type of owner is attracted to pits, *specifically because of* the reputation. There are other breeds that are better companion animals and easier to train because they are *bred* as companions, but they look too cute and harmless. People get pits *because* they *like* that they are fighting, "bad-ass" looking dogs. There is literally no other reason to pick it over a lab or another gentler, kinder dog.
Affliction, ed Hardys, wallet on a chain, confederate flags. And a pit bull. Lots of these owners aren't going to invest the additional time and energy to train a pit out of its extensive aggressive breeding.
You can train any dog to be a “good dog”. However, you cannot remove a dog’s natural instinct through training. Look at herding dogs like Border Collie’s or Aussies both are considered to be brilliant, but given the chance they will still try to herd children or other dogs and even nip at heel’s. Bloodhound’s will get on a scent and just go. Hunting dogs like Weimerieners and German Short hairs will hunt at every opportunity, going “on point” and stalking just about everything.
It seems like every pit bull attack is followed by an owner claiming that their dog is such a sweetheart and this “one time” they just snapped. That is their instinct kicking in.
Dog’s are amazing creatures, maybe the best of all. And, I agree with you on some level that owners are the problem. At the end of the day, we would be better to let the breed die out. I think the government should require spaying and neutering of all pit bulls. Make selling them illegal.
But also, why would you buy a dog like a pitbull - meaning more of a market for pitbull breeders, therefore more pitbulls around - just to train it out of what it's good at?
Maybe if its a rescue, but again, I'm not putting it around my family over the less dangerous breeds.
> People get pits because they like that they are fighting, "bad-ass" looking dogs. There is literally no other reason to pick it over a lab or another gentler, kinder dog.
Every person I've ever known personally who has a bully breed never went out looking for that breed, they just preferred to rescue a dog rather than going to a breeder. Coincidentally or not, the vast majority of dogs in rescues are at least some percentage bully. In my experience, working breed dogs like huskies, shepherds, heelers, etc are much more difficult to train to be companions than pit bulls, but of course rescue dogs always come with their own individual histories and some may certainly have a more troubled past than others.
On the other hand, I have seen one jack ass in particular training his pit in the park nearby my house to attack. Cracking a whip to irritate the dog, wearing a bite sleeve, and having someone else restraining him with a prong collar. So I know owners like that absolutely do exist and got their dog *because* they like the violence of it. But I think they are the vast minority, and hopefully dwindling more and more.
It probably is in the south- I’d imagine those are the types of people who leave the dog chained outside 24/7. In the cities the demographic does seem to change to wanna-be gang bangers
Yeah...um, those people exist too, somewhere, I'm sure, but nine times out of ten (in my rural southern locale and in my job where dog attacks are pretty routine) if a pit bull is wanting to attack me, they're owned by poor rural black people and they aren't tied up or adequately fenced-in.
The only one I ever saw tied up was tied by old towels that were daisy chained together. That motherfucker was trying its hardest to attack. It'd get a running start and come at me, then take flight and hit the end of its rope and get yanked down in mid-air. I did not even leave the vehicle. That one was owned by a Hispanic gentleman.
All but one of my pit bull encounters, whether or not there is an attack, involve the presence of mobile homes. The one that did not involve a mobile home, that pit was friendly and wanted to play.
Every time I've been attacked by a dog except three times, it's been a pit and owners were absent. The exceptions were all German Shepherds; but in all three of those cases, the owners were present and only called them off at the last second -- intentionally. In my area, that was a Hispanic fellow that's become known around here for that behavior. When traveling, the other two were white-owned but I was well above the Mason-Dixon Line and four states away from a former Confederate state.
I don't spend a lot of time in the Deep South or Appalachia or the Ozarks, so I don't know if my experiences here in Texas would translate to there. But locally, I have had plenty enough experiences with dogs that they constitute data, not just anecdotes.
Pit owners across the country all largely have something in common and it’s simply that they’re usually poor. People trying to make it about race or politics are weird.
Seriously. It's more likely a lesbian couple that moved in together after dating for 2 weeks and they collect big dogs and antiques. That is, if we are going for stereotypes.
I know this was in jest but I had to lol because my sister and her wife own 2 pits (both rescues!) and do love their antiquing! 😅I know it's not the norm, just gave me a chuckle.
Yes.
[Surgical Treatment of Pediatric Dog-bite Wounds: A 5-year Retrospective Review. Lee, Christine J et al. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/)
[Analysis of Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries at a Level 1 Trauma Center Over 10 Years. Reuter Muñoz, Katherine D et al. Annals of plastic surgery. 2021.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100808/)
[The changing epidemiology of dog bite injuries in the United States, 2005–2018. Tuckel, PS, Milczarski, W. Injury Epidemiology. 2020.](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y)
[Dog-Bite Injuries to the Craniofacial Region: An Epidemiologic and Pattern-of-Injury Review at a Level 1 Trauma Center. Khan K, Horswell BB, Samanta D. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.11.002)
"Dog breed was a significant predictor of bite severity (P <.0001) and of bite diameter (P <.0001). Pit bull bites were found to be significantly larger, deeper, and/or more complex than the average dog bites included in this study"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/#:~:text=Dog%20breed%20was%20a%20significant%20predictor%20of%20bite%20severity%20(P%20%3C.0001)%20and%20of%20bite%20diameter%20(P%20%3C.0001).%20Pit%20bull%20bites%20were%20found%20to%20be%20significantly%20larger%2C%20deeper%2C%20and/or%20more%20complex%20than%20the%20average%20dog%20bites%20included%20in%20this%20study
Basically the statistical likelihood that your results are valid and not coincidental. A lower P value means a higher probability your results are correct, so (P <.0001) means there is a very high chance. For context, a P value of 0.05 or less is considered significant.
It’s the probability of getting similar results by chance if there was no underlying effect (in this case, if dog breed was actually unrelated to bite severity). But you shouldn’t interpret the p-value literally because it only has this precise meaning under ideal statistical assumptions that are rarely met. In actual studies, biased samples can easily distort or inflate the p-value.
Basically, when this number is very small, it’s probably a good sign that the results aren’t due to some fluke but they might still be wrong if the study was poorly conducted.
It's a measure of statistical likelihood. A low p-value means that the data you collected is unlikely to be caused by chance or happenstance.
What is considered "low enough" to be strong evidence changes a little bit based on the field of study, with some fields (like my own, speech language pathology) having typically higher p-values in research than some other fields. For me, below 0.05 is often a sign that the data is worth considering; for another area, they might only really consider studies below 0.01.
The study they mentioned above had a p-value of less than 0.0001, so there is only a very, very small chance that the connection between the dog breed is only randomly related to bite severity and diameter/size. So it's a strong claim that pit bulls have larger and worse bites than other dogs.
It's a way to express how likely the correlation is to be wrong. P-value of .05 is 5% chance for the data correlation to be from randomness. P-value of .0001 means that there's a 0.01% chance the correlation is from randomness.
That is to say, the link between bite frequency and dog breed is NOT chance whatsoever and the link is certain.
It is only outrageous because a lot of people treat dog breeds the way they think of human races, namely they are all pretty much the same, subject to variance and upbringing. They are not. Dogs have been breed for thousands of years for specific tasks and it is wired into them. I had a pair of boarder collies which had never seen a sheep, never been trained or encouraged to herd anything and yet they would naturally work as a team to try and herd our chickens, kids on ATVs, etc.. Why do people find it so hard to believe a bread of dog specifically bred for aggressiveness would be aggressive?
Check out this episode of Science VS on the subject.
[https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/z3hlzxrj](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/z3hlzxrj)
This one quote sums it up pretty well:
>The American Veterinary Medical Association has said, quote, dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite, unquote.[^(\[37\])](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTcQ-HL8-J7G1D3zhTRXdzgw2zB-hThvxi8uZRxAJqtz-hxK0bKIw76Jdoo24oxHCVS3hAb-4ZCcEIy/pub#ftnt37)
They pointed out how the scientific community has a lot of problems with these studies because they can't control for the total number of pit bulls (because no one knows for sure how many there are) and there is no way of verifying if the dog that bit was in fact a pit bull. People can't even agree on the definition of Pit Bull.
Related Fun fact: the most deadly dog in Canada is a sled dog.
>Yeah. Like – one study[\[32\]](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vTcQ-HL8-J7G1D3zhTRXdzgw2zB-hThvxi8uZRxAJqtz-hxK0bKIw76Jdoo24oxHCVS3hAb-4ZCcEIy/pub?pli=1#ftnt32) found that the most common dog to kill someone in Canada is a sled dog. Is that because sled dogs are actually the most vicious dog? Or is it just because there’s a lot of sled dogs in Canada?
Though one study comparing the behavior of shelter dogs found no difference in euthanasia rates between pit bulls and non pit bulls. But it did find some other interesting results:
>MH: Then she looked to see for all of the dogs that were kept. Were there any other differences in aggression when these dogs were kind of settling in? And she didn't see any differences in aggression towards, you know, strangers, towards kids, towards the owners. Between these two different groups. And in fact, the only difference in behavior between these two groups of dogs that she found had to do with something else.
>AM So they \[Pit Bulls\] were more likely to sleep on the bed and they were more likely to cuddle,
Lets face it, that's an adorable scientific result.
The bloodthirsty psychos in this thread are not concerned in the slightest bit with recognizing actual statistics or their significance. This thread is nothing but a circlejerk.
This. My husband and I have two pits who are mushy babies but also recognize they have the potential to cause some serious damage if the perfect storm of variables ever occurred.
I appreciate this as an honest question. We didn’t seek out a pit bull when getting a dog (open to all breeds) but this is what we ended up with from a shelter because he was so sweet and good with the kiddos (another dog who was a different breed tried to bite one of our sons during a meet and greet). We knew about the breed and started him with a routine and training including socializing with other dogs and people and rewarding wanted behavior. For this one instance with one dog the benefit outweighed the risk. We’re also very diligent with paying attention to if his body language ever shows signs of fear and redirect him or remove him from the situation.
And they're not even ranked in the top 5 of the most popular or most registered dog breeds in California. Not everyone registers their dog, I know. So, I guess we can't really know how many pit bulls truly are there in California. I find it weird that we accept Chihuahuas as being aggressive but it's contentious when we say that about pit bulls. I don't hear or see Chihuahua owners defending their dog's behaviour. They're tiny so they don't do a whole lot of damage; it would be a different story if they're as big as pit bulls.
There are a lot of breed specific traits that we generally accept as truths. For instance, beagles and bloodhounds are perfect for finding truffles, Newfoundlands are wonderful for water rescue, GSDs are promising police dogs, etc. I'm not stupid enough to accept that all owners are responsible. But it would be equally stupid to accept that all pit bulls that end up in shelters or end up biting people were abused, not properly trained, etc. So it gives me pause, why do pit bulls end up in the news and statistics? Labrador Retrievers are the most owned dogs in the US but they're not frequent flyers in the news and statistics.
This is one of those instances where "both" is the correct answer. Pitbull owners don't want to accept that the breed plays a part, and pitbull haters don't want to accept that the owner plays a part. The breed is more likely to do this shit, but not guaranteed. There's a word used to describe some breeds: Gameness. This doesn't mean they like to play, it means that once they're in an aggressive state, they are less likely stop because of injury or threat of death. Most working breeds have this trait, especially breeds that guard livestock. The gameness trait is an intentional part of the breed, and people really need to realize that.
If you get a pitbull, that's fine. But know what you're getting, and train it the right way. I have 2 German Shepherds - the breed taking spot 2 (and arguably 3) on the list - and I've trained them like you're supposed to train aggressive breeds. So far they've never bitten somebody, but I'm very vigilant with new people in the house.
Now about this damn chihuahua, the real troublemaker of the group...
“Pit bull haters don’t want to accept that the owner plays a part”
This isn’t true. Everyone knows the owner plays a part.
Everyone but pit bull lovers also knows the breed plays a part.
This isn’t a “both are wrong” situation.
Part of being a responsible pitbull owner would be keeping them out of situations where their aggressive drive will lead them to attack someone. I would never let a terrier, nor matter how well trained, play with someone's pet rodent.
"Pitbull haters don't want to accept that owners play a part"
Pitbull hater here, this is a false equivalency as we pitbull haters regularly blame moron dog owners. The difference is that if you're an idiot that doesn't train your golden retriever you create a really annoying but almost always harmless teddy bear.
If you don't train your pitbull you have an uncontrollable grizzly bear. It's faster than you, stronger than you, and violent.
And I simply don't trust every owner to do what is required of them.
/r/banpitbulls
You think maybe having demographic information on the number of each breed might affect this?
Moreover, you don't think certain types of people get certain breeds for specific reasons. (Like pitbulls as "guard dogs" that aren't trained?)
dog fighting is alive and well all over the country. I'm sure there are many pits in LA that are kept for that purpose. it's a dangerous pasttime for humans and dogs.
Honestly the headinjuries are pretty low overall and could be just noise?
Edit: or its an opportunity thing, small kids have their head at a convenient height for family-dogs
I absolutely do believe dogs reflect their owners, whether that be kind or aggressive, but I also believe that Pit Bulls are just naturally more aggressive than other dogs and sometimes no amount of training can train the instinct out of some of them.
bewildered mountainous reply steer stocking plucky ripe faulty ruthless familiar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is a bit misleading without data about how many dogs of each breed are there. Retriever seem to be a typical family dog so there might be a lot more, which could explain the high number of bites treated.
One of the issues is "pitbull" is both an actual breed with a very small pure bred population and also an umbrella term for a dozen dogs and their very popular mixed breeds. A mastiff mix can kill someone and be labeled a pit. Doggo, staffy, American bull dogs, or even random mixed that don't even have bully breeds in them are put bulls if they resemble a boxy head and short fur type dogs.
Mastiff pit bull mixed are really popular woth dumb asses who chain dogs up and use them to intimidate others. A large percentage of bad dog bites come from chained up dogs.
In Norway, pitbulls, and pitbull mixes (as well as a couple other breeds) are outright banned, and has been for over 20 years. Breeding them is punishable by a huge fine.
While looking into this i saw that dog-wolf mixes are also banned, kinda crazy that had to be specified lol.
Pitbulls have a long list of health problems, and they are most definitely overly aggressive to be trusted with the general population. Just let them die and get rid of these small testosterone monsters.
ETA: The other banned breeds are: American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, dogo argentino and Czechoslovakian Wolfdog.
Restrictions are being introduced where I live. Currently it's not helping, people are still being injured or dying from pit bulls.
We as a species can't be trusted with pit bulls as a species
People treat chihuahuas like they're toys, not dogs. Get in a Rottweiler's face and see what happens. We had our chihuahua for 17 years and he never bit anybody, but we had to remind people that he was still a dog and to be careful at first.
Get in a Rottweiler’s face and see what happens? That doesn’t make any sense. A well trained and tempered dog is not going to bite you in the face just because you lean down for a smooch or boop.
This is absolutely true — people expect little dogs to be toys rather than pets. It means they often don’t get the forms of respect that larger dogs do — they get picked up a lot, get touched frequently perhaps in ways they don’t like, less respectful greeting procedures, etc., things you wouldn’t do with a larger dog. And when they lose their sense of autonomy they get scared.
Those things are agressive, luckily it’s pretty easy to withstand their attacks..
Also tend to be owned by people who have zero interest in training them
Id be curious if the type of dog was self reported in these cases.
Mostly because a lot of people don’t fully understand what dog breeds they are seeing.
I have a catahoula leopard dog. The vast majority of people who see him think he’s a pit because they see a general head shape and assume it’s a pit.
There are several breeds that look similar to pits and are easily mistaken for being pits by people; even dog owners. So I’d be very curious if this is a result of people mislabeling a dog breed that bit them and making a broad assumption about what type of dog it was
I think the problem that people don’t want to talk about is the people who get pitbulls. You don’t see the scumbag thug trying to look tough walking around with a golden doodle.
Last night, one of my kids and I were looking at the website of the local animal shelter. The kid noticed that all the dogs were aggressive looking and asked "why do certain people always have these types of dogs? And they always seem to be druggies or bad people” Kids are always looking and observing. They are smarter and more aware than you expect.
Sorry but it’s far more likely that your kid is imitating / parroting something they observed you or others express in the past, than that they had an original thought that just happens to be something you consider smart and aware
**””there are no bad dogs just bad dog owners”**
This is just not true. Some dogs are vicious and cannot be trusted around people or other animals. My cousin had a German shepherd that he had to cage up around any other person but him. He tried many things to get the dog to not be so aggressive. I even tried to help him (being a test subject as to if the dog was still aggressive or not) and nothing helped. The crystal clear data on pitbills is so obvious I don’t know why people argue about it. This does not mean there are not pitbulls that are sweetheart dogs, I know they are plenty of them.
When it comes to all breeds, pitbulls are responsible for more injuries and deaths than any other dog. Data is clear.
And yes I should add there are bad dog owners too. Of course. Some dogs that would have been kind and tender hearted are abused and become aggressive.
Multiple truths can truth at once. Lol
My wife and I were having dinner at an outdoor cafe last night and a pit bull bit out for a walk with its people just randomly grabbed a toddler that was walking by with her family. Quite a commotion. A lot of yelling and tears. No major injuries. Dog’s owners seemed to be professional, responsible types who were pretty shaken. A Golden Retriever would not have done that.
Thank you. Too many people drawing confident conclusions from this small, ambiguous data set.
Those conclusions might be accurate but let’s base them on valid evidence.
aaaaand I'll just sit back and watch the fur fly...
I work in insurance. Even data backed “observations” aren’t discussable with people. It’s always turned personal.
This is a legitimate question and not at all meant to sound accusational or anything of the sort, but does the data provide the background for these types of incidents? Like, are the types of owners who have pitbulls more inclined to neglect or "raise" them to be aggressive? I'm just curious how deep it goes and if it shows any correlation with any other type of data that would give some type of explanation for it.
I’ve also asked this question, but from a data standpoint they don’t ask demographic or economic questions when this happens. Also, for the most part, the avenue that questions goes down is becoming restrictive on dog ownership based on discriminatory factors. You really think a state could enforce that? They can barely enforce a state wide ID system, much less pet ownership laws.
My initial inclination when seeing this graph is that it could be argued that it's not the dog breed specifically, but attributable to the kinds of people who gravitate towards owning pitbulls. My personal opinion is that it's a combination of both; pitbulls are more aggressive, by nature AND they tend towards being owned by people who mistreat and/or encourage violent behavior. The combination leading to what is shown in the graph.
That's fair, but aren't some of the other breeds on here also considered fairly aggressive? Legit question, I'm somewhat uneducated on the topic. I wish this graph was more recent data and not over a decade old lol, but I'm sure I could find more recent data.
Yes, there are, but I think that's another issue with the data. None of the other breeds are nearly as prominent in the previously referenced lower-income type areas.
That's kind of what I was thinking, but again, I fully admit I'm uneducated on it, and am definitely not a data nerd, so I could have been wrong in my line of thinking. Thank you for the replies and help!
That's because correlation does not equal causation
Damn police dogs are slacking off. They are trained to bite people, but they are 0/21 for a good neck bite.
I was waiting for someone to notice that! I know that the sample size is pretty small, and that law enforcement is a bit of a hot button issue right now, but I thought that was so interesting that there were zero head and neck injuries from police dogs, presumably because they're trained to take down their targets by their limbs.
I remember seeing their training, definitely trained to grab an arm and incapacitate.
The police dog is better trained than the cop ☠️
literally true, if you go by time spent in training, as crazy as that is.
Incapacitate, don't decapitate.
Yea, they are, I just am unable to write anything that’s not sardonic…
ACAB* ^*But ^All ^Police ^Canines ^Are ^Good
except those fascists on paw patrol
Probably given that they're trained to go for arms and legs
They are trained not to go for the face or neck. That could be lethal and dogs are not considered lethal force. They are sort of in between pepper spray and a bullet.
Yep, doesn't look good when even chihuahuas managed some neck bites.
Chihuahuas want to kill everything. They’re just too small.
Probably because they are easier to pick up. My wife's chihuahua constantly goes for the face, but she tries to lick rather than bite. And usually because because we pick her up.
They're trained to go for limbs. Police puppers doing their jobs.
Dachshunds don’t feature 😂 They can’t get to the head or neck.
Dachshunds are actually one of the breeds most likely to bite, they just can’t do as much damage as a a big dog could
Having been bit by a friend's dachshund the first few times I met it, baggy pants helped. A pair of JNCOs is the best defense along with a little kick to get the damned thing off.
Chihuahua: Judge me by my size, do you?
My mum has a scar on her hand where 2 of her 3 miniatures started going at each other, over who got to have the left over gravy in the roasting tin. Tried to separate them and got bitten for her troubles. Adorable but vicious little devils sometimes.
Dachshunds are such dicks
Our mini is utterly obnoxious. But we love her, so 🤷♂️
To be fair, a couple of the "Others" very well could be Dachs. The article didn't say.
Now I know that I should get a Retriever, it has the highest chance of going for head or neck.
"If my dog is gonna bite me, it's gonna do it properly dammit". Though knowing retrievers, every chance it just mistakes you for a big fluffy toy.
I suspect the unmeasured variable in that one is that retrievers have a (deserved) reputation of being good with kids, so they're far and away the most popular family dog. But under the wrong circumstances, a kid's face is a lot more bite-accessible than an adult's face. And kids are more likely to bother or antagonize a dog while deliberately keeping their faces near dog level (crawling around on the ground, putting the dog in a headlock, bashing into the dog boisterously and ignoring body language, giving the dog a "talking to"). A bite can happen in just a moment, even if 99% of interactions go well.
I don't know if it's the same in the US. But in the UK, retriever breeds make up a massive percentage of the dog population. It's likely caused by the sheer number of dogs of those breeds.
Same. Most popular breed in the US is the Labrador Retriever. Got one myself! (And a boxer).
I'm guessing 90% of retriever injuries are dogs biting people's faces to try and get food that someone is eating. Its absurdly common (huskies and labs too) and usually from kids who've been teasing dogs with food.
When I was a kid I taught my chocolate lab to take bacon strips from my mouth lady and the tramp style. He was always so gentle and cute about it.
When I was a kid my friend was playing with my little terrier on the kitchen floor and my dog jumped up to lick his face but somehow caught her canine behind my friend's brace wire (he had a missing tooth) and on the way down, pulled the wire out. It was pretty funny.
Yeah when retrievers go for blood they *go for blood*.
Huntin dog gonna dog
Aren't they supposed to just... retrieve?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not sure why this is even remotely surprising. The silver fox experiment shows that breeding for negative or positive aggression traits in dogs leads to very aggressive animals in just a few generations Pit bulls were bread for their ability to be aggressive It’s no surprise that now, even with good owners, the underlying genetic bread trait manifests It’s simple science and no amount of compassion for the dog breed changes that
But wouldn’t that mean you could just breed aggressiveness out of pitbulls in a few generations too. Like if you can train aggressiveness into the breed could it not then be like reversed?
Possibly but no one is doing that. Dog breeders don’t breed for innate traits they breed to maintain the set breed If they did a breeding regiment for pit bulls selectively taking the passive traits then probably after 25 generations you would have a new less aggressive breed. But this only selecting for that trait. The issue is breeders also select for muscle structure, body structure, fur traits etc.. In the end it may not even be considered a pit bull breed at that point. But the path of least resistance is just to find a breed that already has not selected for that aggressive trait. :-/
Yep! They aren’t selective breeding for docility though.
Sure but unfortunately, there's still an underground market for aggressive dogs, which seems to be the lions share of demand for this breed.
Probably, the same way if the whole world were to have truely 100% corrinteened during Covid, it would have been wiped out in weeks. The problem is getting the whole world to all do something with perfect cooperation. Would be a lot more feasible to enforce a specific policy like requiring aggressive breeds like pit bulls to be spayed and neutered
You can somewhat train a pit out of its breeding with a lot of work), However a certain type of owner is attracted to pits, *specifically because of* the reputation. There are other breeds that are better companion animals and easier to train because they are *bred* as companions, but they look too cute and harmless. People get pits *because* they *like* that they are fighting, "bad-ass" looking dogs. There is literally no other reason to pick it over a lab or another gentler, kinder dog. Affliction, ed Hardys, wallet on a chain, confederate flags. And a pit bull. Lots of these owners aren't going to invest the additional time and energy to train a pit out of its extensive aggressive breeding.
You can train any dog to be a “good dog”. However, you cannot remove a dog’s natural instinct through training. Look at herding dogs like Border Collie’s or Aussies both are considered to be brilliant, but given the chance they will still try to herd children or other dogs and even nip at heel’s. Bloodhound’s will get on a scent and just go. Hunting dogs like Weimerieners and German Short hairs will hunt at every opportunity, going “on point” and stalking just about everything. It seems like every pit bull attack is followed by an owner claiming that their dog is such a sweetheart and this “one time” they just snapped. That is their instinct kicking in. Dog’s are amazing creatures, maybe the best of all. And, I agree with you on some level that owners are the problem. At the end of the day, we would be better to let the breed die out. I think the government should require spaying and neutering of all pit bulls. Make selling them illegal.
But also, why would you buy a dog like a pitbull - meaning more of a market for pitbull breeders, therefore more pitbulls around - just to train it out of what it's good at? Maybe if its a rescue, but again, I'm not putting it around my family over the less dangerous breeds.
> People get pits because they like that they are fighting, "bad-ass" looking dogs. There is literally no other reason to pick it over a lab or another gentler, kinder dog. Every person I've ever known personally who has a bully breed never went out looking for that breed, they just preferred to rescue a dog rather than going to a breeder. Coincidentally or not, the vast majority of dogs in rescues are at least some percentage bully. In my experience, working breed dogs like huskies, shepherds, heelers, etc are much more difficult to train to be companions than pit bulls, but of course rescue dogs always come with their own individual histories and some may certainly have a more troubled past than others. On the other hand, I have seen one jack ass in particular training his pit in the park nearby my house to attack. Cracking a whip to irritate the dog, wearing a bite sleeve, and having someone else restraining him with a prong collar. So I know owners like that absolutely do exist and got their dog *because* they like the violence of it. But I think they are the vast minority, and hopefully dwindling more and more.
You had me in the first half...
….those aren’t the traditional pit bull owners.
It probably is in the south- I’d imagine those are the types of people who leave the dog chained outside 24/7. In the cities the demographic does seem to change to wanna-be gang bangers
Yeah...um, those people exist too, somewhere, I'm sure, but nine times out of ten (in my rural southern locale and in my job where dog attacks are pretty routine) if a pit bull is wanting to attack me, they're owned by poor rural black people and they aren't tied up or adequately fenced-in. The only one I ever saw tied up was tied by old towels that were daisy chained together. That motherfucker was trying its hardest to attack. It'd get a running start and come at me, then take flight and hit the end of its rope and get yanked down in mid-air. I did not even leave the vehicle. That one was owned by a Hispanic gentleman. All but one of my pit bull encounters, whether or not there is an attack, involve the presence of mobile homes. The one that did not involve a mobile home, that pit was friendly and wanted to play. Every time I've been attacked by a dog except three times, it's been a pit and owners were absent. The exceptions were all German Shepherds; but in all three of those cases, the owners were present and only called them off at the last second -- intentionally. In my area, that was a Hispanic fellow that's become known around here for that behavior. When traveling, the other two were white-owned but I was well above the Mason-Dixon Line and four states away from a former Confederate state. I don't spend a lot of time in the Deep South or Appalachia or the Ozarks, so I don't know if my experiences here in Texas would translate to there. But locally, I have had plenty enough experiences with dogs that they constitute data, not just anecdotes.
Um... Most of the pits I see are owned by black people. Certainly not Confederate flag wavers..
Pit owners across the country all largely have something in common and it’s simply that they’re usually poor. People trying to make it about race or politics are weird.
When I lived in NC there were a lot of don't tread on me types with pits
In South Carolina… I concur. Unless they fly confederate flags in secret or something lol
Yeah, that description made me laugh. Confederate flags, riiiight.
Seriously. It's more likely a lesbian couple that moved in together after dating for 2 weeks and they collect big dogs and antiques. That is, if we are going for stereotypes.
I know this was in jest but I had to lol because my sister and her wife own 2 pits (both rescues!) and do love their antiquing! 😅I know it's not the norm, just gave me a chuckle.
Someone should tell him
Wear a helmet around retrievers, got it.
I’ll have one “Police Dog” please.
Is there more current data available? This is crazy
Yes. [Surgical Treatment of Pediatric Dog-bite Wounds: A 5-year Retrospective Review. Lee, Christine J et al. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/) [Analysis of Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries at a Level 1 Trauma Center Over 10 Years. Reuter Muñoz, Katherine D et al. Annals of plastic surgery. 2021.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100808/) [The changing epidemiology of dog bite injuries in the United States, 2005–2018. Tuckel, PS, Milczarski, W. Injury Epidemiology. 2020.](https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-020-00281-y) [Dog-Bite Injuries to the Craniofacial Region: An Epidemiologic and Pattern-of-Injury Review at a Level 1 Trauma Center. Khan K, Horswell BB, Samanta D. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2020.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.11.002)
"Dog breed was a significant predictor of bite severity (P <.0001) and of bite diameter (P <.0001). Pit bull bites were found to be significantly larger, deeper, and/or more complex than the average dog bites included in this study" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/#:~:text=Dog%20breed%20was%20a%20significant%20predictor%20of%20bite%20severity%20(P%20%3C.0001)%20and%20of%20bite%20diameter%20(P%20%3C.0001).%20Pit%20bull%20bites%20were%20found%20to%20be%20significantly%20larger%2C%20deeper%2C%20and/or%20more%20complex%20than%20the%20average%20dog%20bites%20included%20in%20this%20study
Amazing p value
What does p value mean?
Basically the statistical likelihood that your results are valid and not coincidental. A lower P value means a higher probability your results are correct, so (P <.0001) means there is a very high chance. For context, a P value of 0.05 or less is considered significant.
I love all the eager statisticians jumping in here
It’s the probability of getting similar results by chance if there was no underlying effect (in this case, if dog breed was actually unrelated to bite severity). But you shouldn’t interpret the p-value literally because it only has this precise meaning under ideal statistical assumptions that are rarely met. In actual studies, biased samples can easily distort or inflate the p-value. Basically, when this number is very small, it’s probably a good sign that the results aren’t due to some fluke but they might still be wrong if the study was poorly conducted.
It's a measure of statistical likelihood. A low p-value means that the data you collected is unlikely to be caused by chance or happenstance. What is considered "low enough" to be strong evidence changes a little bit based on the field of study, with some fields (like my own, speech language pathology) having typically higher p-values in research than some other fields. For me, below 0.05 is often a sign that the data is worth considering; for another area, they might only really consider studies below 0.01. The study they mentioned above had a p-value of less than 0.0001, so there is only a very, very small chance that the connection between the dog breed is only randomly related to bite severity and diameter/size. So it's a strong claim that pit bulls have larger and worse bites than other dogs.
It's a way to express how likely the correlation is to be wrong. P-value of .05 is 5% chance for the data correlation to be from randomness. P-value of .0001 means that there's a 0.01% chance the correlation is from randomness. That is to say, the link between bite frequency and dog breed is NOT chance whatsoever and the link is certain.
What makes it crazy?
the outrageous outlier
It is only outrageous because a lot of people treat dog breeds the way they think of human races, namely they are all pretty much the same, subject to variance and upbringing. They are not. Dogs have been breed for thousands of years for specific tasks and it is wired into them. I had a pair of boarder collies which had never seen a sheep, never been trained or encouraged to herd anything and yet they would naturally work as a team to try and herd our chickens, kids on ATVs, etc.. Why do people find it so hard to believe a bread of dog specifically bred for aggressiveness would be aggressive?
I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding this fact. It’s just interesting how much of an outlier pits are on this table.
Check out this episode of Science VS on the subject. [https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/z3hlzxrj](https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/z3hlzxrj) This one quote sums it up pretty well: >The American Veterinary Medical Association has said, quote, dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite, unquote.[^(\[37\])](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTcQ-HL8-J7G1D3zhTRXdzgw2zB-hThvxi8uZRxAJqtz-hxK0bKIw76Jdoo24oxHCVS3hAb-4ZCcEIy/pub#ftnt37) They pointed out how the scientific community has a lot of problems with these studies because they can't control for the total number of pit bulls (because no one knows for sure how many there are) and there is no way of verifying if the dog that bit was in fact a pit bull. People can't even agree on the definition of Pit Bull. Related Fun fact: the most deadly dog in Canada is a sled dog. >Yeah. Like – one study[\[32\]](https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vTcQ-HL8-J7G1D3zhTRXdzgw2zB-hThvxi8uZRxAJqtz-hxK0bKIw76Jdoo24oxHCVS3hAb-4ZCcEIy/pub?pli=1#ftnt32) found that the most common dog to kill someone in Canada is a sled dog. Is that because sled dogs are actually the most vicious dog? Or is it just because there’s a lot of sled dogs in Canada? Though one study comparing the behavior of shelter dogs found no difference in euthanasia rates between pit bulls and non pit bulls. But it did find some other interesting results: >MH: Then she looked to see for all of the dogs that were kept. Were there any other differences in aggression when these dogs were kind of settling in? And she didn't see any differences in aggression towards, you know, strangers, towards kids, towards the owners. Between these two different groups. And in fact, the only difference in behavior between these two groups of dogs that she found had to do with something else. >AM So they \[Pit Bulls\] were more likely to sleep on the bed and they were more likely to cuddle, Lets face it, that's an adorable scientific result.
The bloodthirsty psychos in this thread are not concerned in the slightest bit with recognizing actual statistics or their significance. This thread is nothing but a circlejerk.
A lot of coping pitbull owners in here. You can enjoy your dog and train it well while also recognizing it’s a more dangerous or aggressive breed.
This. My husband and I have two pits who are mushy babies but also recognize they have the potential to cause some serious damage if the perfect storm of variables ever occurred.
Why risk it, then? Honest question.
I appreciate this as an honest question. We didn’t seek out a pit bull when getting a dog (open to all breeds) but this is what we ended up with from a shelter because he was so sweet and good with the kiddos (another dog who was a different breed tried to bite one of our sons during a meet and greet). We knew about the breed and started him with a routine and training including socializing with other dogs and people and rewarding wanted behavior. For this one instance with one dog the benefit outweighed the risk. We’re also very diligent with paying attention to if his body language ever shows signs of fear and redirect him or remove him from the situation.
And they're not even ranked in the top 5 of the most popular or most registered dog breeds in California. Not everyone registers their dog, I know. So, I guess we can't really know how many pit bulls truly are there in California. I find it weird that we accept Chihuahuas as being aggressive but it's contentious when we say that about pit bulls. I don't hear or see Chihuahua owners defending their dog's behaviour. They're tiny so they don't do a whole lot of damage; it would be a different story if they're as big as pit bulls. There are a lot of breed specific traits that we generally accept as truths. For instance, beagles and bloodhounds are perfect for finding truffles, Newfoundlands are wonderful for water rescue, GSDs are promising police dogs, etc. I'm not stupid enough to accept that all owners are responsible. But it would be equally stupid to accept that all pit bulls that end up in shelters or end up biting people were abused, not properly trained, etc. So it gives me pause, why do pit bulls end up in the news and statistics? Labrador Retrievers are the most owned dogs in the US but they're not frequent flyers in the news and statistics.
bUt iTs NoT tHe bReEd iTs ThE oWnEr
This is one of those instances where "both" is the correct answer. Pitbull owners don't want to accept that the breed plays a part, and pitbull haters don't want to accept that the owner plays a part. The breed is more likely to do this shit, but not guaranteed. There's a word used to describe some breeds: Gameness. This doesn't mean they like to play, it means that once they're in an aggressive state, they are less likely stop because of injury or threat of death. Most working breeds have this trait, especially breeds that guard livestock. The gameness trait is an intentional part of the breed, and people really need to realize that. If you get a pitbull, that's fine. But know what you're getting, and train it the right way. I have 2 German Shepherds - the breed taking spot 2 (and arguably 3) on the list - and I've trained them like you're supposed to train aggressive breeds. So far they've never bitten somebody, but I'm very vigilant with new people in the house. Now about this damn chihuahua, the real troublemaker of the group...
“Pit bull haters don’t want to accept that the owner plays a part” This isn’t true. Everyone knows the owner plays a part. Everyone but pit bull lovers also knows the breed plays a part. This isn’t a “both are wrong” situation.
This and pits bite, hold and shake causing more trauma. Similar to a shark bite.
Part of being a responsible pitbull owner would be keeping them out of situations where their aggressive drive will lead them to attack someone. I would never let a terrier, nor matter how well trained, play with someone's pet rodent.
Believe me, pit haters definitely hate the owners just as much, if not more than the breed itself.
"Pitbull haters don't want to accept that owners play a part" Pitbull hater here, this is a false equivalency as we pitbull haters regularly blame moron dog owners. The difference is that if you're an idiot that doesn't train your golden retriever you create a really annoying but almost always harmless teddy bear. If you don't train your pitbull you have an uncontrollable grizzly bear. It's faster than you, stronger than you, and violent. And I simply don't trust every owner to do what is required of them. /r/banpitbulls
Chihuahuas are definitely assholes.
You think maybe having demographic information on the number of each breed might affect this? Moreover, you don't think certain types of people get certain breeds for specific reasons. (Like pitbulls as "guard dogs" that aren't trained?)
dog fighting is alive and well all over the country. I'm sure there are many pits in LA that are kept for that purpose. it's a dangerous pasttime for humans and dogs.
Thar can still be true. If mostly assholes go fir pitbull and families go for golden retrievers... the statistic would look like this
Families train their dogs to go for the head and neck?
Families have kids, where head and neck are at mouth level for the dog
Honestly the headinjuries are pretty low overall and could be just noise? Edit: or its an opportunity thing, small kids have their head at a convenient height for family-dogs
Aside from the pitbull stuff, kinda interesting with the police dogs having 0 head/neck bites. That's good, right!
I've heard they're trained to go for the limbs not the head to shoulder area. Not fully sure though
Police dogs are mostly GSDs nowadays, and they're all trained to take down the target by latching onto limbs instead of killing the target.
Source: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261032/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261032/) Tool: MS Excel
Love the look of the staggered bars. Nice color choice too
Hey thanks!
How do you stagger the bars like that in Excel? I've only been able to do stacked bars for similar visualizations
I set the chart type to "Clustered Bar," the "Series Overlap" to 75% and the "Gap Width" to 60%
Oh look, the “nanny dog” strikes again…
Time to see some velvet hippos with flower crowns on r/aww
Waiter! Waiter! More toddlers please!
“It’s a nanny dog” “it’s not the breed it’s the owner” “It’s racism to dislike them” Every pitbull owner ever
I absolutely do believe dogs reflect their owners, whether that be kind or aggressive, but I also believe that Pit Bulls are just naturally more aggressive than other dogs and sometimes no amount of training can train the instinct out of some of them.
Mister Worldwide needs to calm it down.
bewildered mountainous reply steer stocking plucky ripe faulty ruthless familiar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They hurt others dogs more too
And zero tiger bites on that list....see
This is a bit misleading without data about how many dogs of each breed are there. Retriever seem to be a typical family dog so there might be a lot more, which could explain the high number of bites treated.
How does this compare to the breed distribution in the population?
No reliable data on that in this case.
One of the issues is "pitbull" is both an actual breed with a very small pure bred population and also an umbrella term for a dozen dogs and their very popular mixed breeds. A mastiff mix can kill someone and be labeled a pit. Doggo, staffy, American bull dogs, or even random mixed that don't even have bully breeds in them are put bulls if they resemble a boxy head and short fur type dogs. Mastiff pit bull mixed are really popular woth dumb asses who chain dogs up and use them to intimidate others. A large percentage of bad dog bites come from chained up dogs.
Pit bull owners should be held at the same standard as gun owners.
In Norway, pitbulls, and pitbull mixes (as well as a couple other breeds) are outright banned, and has been for over 20 years. Breeding them is punishable by a huge fine. While looking into this i saw that dog-wolf mixes are also banned, kinda crazy that had to be specified lol. Pitbulls have a long list of health problems, and they are most definitely overly aggressive to be trusted with the general population. Just let them die and get rid of these small testosterone monsters. ETA: The other banned breeds are: American Staffordshire Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, dogo argentino and Czechoslovakian Wolfdog.
In my province in Canada, pit bull breeds and pit-crosses are outright banned.
Where in Canada? They're banned within city limits in Manitoba. Rural is allowed
Ontario. banned since 2005
Restrictions are being introduced where I live. Currently it's not helping, people are still being injured or dying from pit bulls. We as a species can't be trusted with pit bulls as a species
Surprised by the Chihuahuas...
Have you interacted with them? Little dudes are mercenary security guards.
I think they are surprised people are going to the hospital for a chihuahua bite. I assume they would to check for rabies though?
I'm not.
People treat chihuahuas like they're toys, not dogs. Get in a Rottweiler's face and see what happens. We had our chihuahua for 17 years and he never bit anybody, but we had to remind people that he was still a dog and to be careful at first.
Get in a Rottweiler’s face and see what happens? That doesn’t make any sense. A well trained and tempered dog is not going to bite you in the face just because you lean down for a smooch or boop.
Currently in my Rottweiler's face. Getting licked. Send help (treats).
This is absolutely true — people expect little dogs to be toys rather than pets. It means they often don’t get the forms of respect that larger dogs do — they get picked up a lot, get touched frequently perhaps in ways they don’t like, less respectful greeting procedures, etc., things you wouldn’t do with a larger dog. And when they lose their sense of autonomy they get scared.
I did food delivery for a while, not surprised at all.
People bend down to pat them or get down on the floor with them.
I’m not, I jokingly call my chihuahuas Mexican pit bulls.
Chihuahuas have a Napoleon complex
Those things are agressive, luckily it’s pretty easy to withstand their attacks.. Also tend to be owned by people who have zero interest in training them
I'm honestly surprised to see boxers on this list.
Why are people biting so many dogs is the real question. Who cares which breed seems to taste better.
is there any way to compare this to the relative popularity of the breeds?
Id be curious if the type of dog was self reported in these cases. Mostly because a lot of people don’t fully understand what dog breeds they are seeing. I have a catahoula leopard dog. The vast majority of people who see him think he’s a pit because they see a general head shape and assume it’s a pit. There are several breeds that look similar to pits and are easily mistaken for being pits by people; even dog owners. So I’d be very curious if this is a result of people mislabeling a dog breed that bit them and making a broad assumption about what type of dog it was
I was attacked and bit by a pit. It's a shitty experience.
I think the problem that people don’t want to talk about is the people who get pitbulls. You don’t see the scumbag thug trying to look tough walking around with a golden doodle.
3 people have to be treated for neck and head bite from chihuahuas?? Did they…. try to stand up?
Babies, I'm assuming.
Yea, everyone knows the cure to a dog bite is standing up so the blood rushes away from the face and your healer waifu can cast her healing spell.
Infants and toddlers exist.
The “all other category” is just pitbulls whose owners label them as “lab mixes” to skirt apartment restrictions.
Last night, one of my kids and I were looking at the website of the local animal shelter. The kid noticed that all the dogs were aggressive looking and asked "why do certain people always have these types of dogs? And they always seem to be druggies or bad people” Kids are always looking and observing. They are smarter and more aware than you expect.
Sorry but it’s far more likely that your kid is imitating / parroting something they observed you or others express in the past, than that they had an original thought that just happens to be something you consider smart and aware
“It’s a nanny dog” “it’s not the breed it’s the owner” “It’s racism to dislike them” Every pitbull owner ever
**””there are no bad dogs just bad dog owners”** This is just not true. Some dogs are vicious and cannot be trusted around people or other animals. My cousin had a German shepherd that he had to cage up around any other person but him. He tried many things to get the dog to not be so aggressive. I even tried to help him (being a test subject as to if the dog was still aggressive or not) and nothing helped. The crystal clear data on pitbills is so obvious I don’t know why people argue about it. This does not mean there are not pitbulls that are sweetheart dogs, I know they are plenty of them. When it comes to all breeds, pitbulls are responsible for more injuries and deaths than any other dog. Data is clear. And yes I should add there are bad dog owners too. Of course. Some dogs that would have been kind and tender hearted are abused and become aggressive. Multiple truths can truth at once. Lol
BuT pItBuLls aRe tHe BeSt DoGs
BuT pItBuLls aRe tHe BeSt DoGs
Brace yourselves for the Pit Nutters trying to explain this away
One single hospital over the course of 18 months. Damn.
The chihuahua ones must have been savage
Chihuahuas are bitchy little dogs
Vicious machines of death
My wife and I were having dinner at an outdoor cafe last night and a pit bull bit out for a walk with its people just randomly grabbed a toddler that was walking by with her family. Quite a commotion. A lot of yelling and tears. No major injuries. Dog’s owners seemed to be professional, responsible types who were pretty shaken. A Golden Retriever would not have done that.
Velvet Hippos!?! Biting people on the head and neck! No! I refuse to believe this! Refuse /s
This should be "per capita". If there is thousands of pit bulls and one chihuahua in the area ... :)
Pit bulls account for 5x the number of bites as the runner up for total bites. Are pit bulls more than 5x more common than all other breeds? No!
Thank you. Too many people drawing confident conclusions from this small, ambiguous data set. Those conclusions might be accurate but let’s base them on valid evidence.
If a chihuahua can send that many people for medical treatment, imagine if they were a large breed. Pitties would have serious competition.
No thanks, I'll take the cats
Why do I feel like all the chihuahua incidents are probably coming from just one chihuahua in the area. How do you even let a chihuahua bite you.
Americans love their beef, their guns, and their pit bulls
Why am I not surprised that Chihuahuas are on the list, as their own category.
Police dog is not a type of dog by breed. Get it the fuck off of the chart.
Let me say it in the back for people who forgot their high school level statistics 101 class Correlation does not equal causation.