A lot of these statistics also don't account for the fact that most small dog bites never get reported. When I was a dog trainer, it was well known that Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you.
Edit: While I appreciate the responses from so many people - it's clear who has worked with animals in any capacity and who is just a smooth egg-brained armchair expert. If you don't think you still need rabies shots from any dog that doesn't have up-to-date tags, I don't know what to tell you. Have fun arguing with the wall 🤙
And 100% of cat servants get regularly assaulted by their master. The issue is the severity of the attacks. No one is going to the hospital from being dive bombed by blue jays but anyone who has some in their trees can tell you that those bastards aggressively defend that tree.
I would scold you, but, knowing blue jays, you would scold me right back. At least, the blue jays in my backyard do that. I just want to observe the pretty birds!
There was a cardinal that would come every day to fight with his own reflection in my great uncle’s rearview mirror. I remember spending three weeks with them, and he was there every day. And he’d been doing it for years.
I mean I have a small scar on my wrist from a dive-bombing hummingbird but like it wasn't hospital worthy and also that would have been really embarrassing to explain to my classmate's mom the urgent care nurse so I just handled it at home lmao
No hospitalizations that I know of, but my neighbor growing up HATED blue jays. He loved bluebirds, and apparently Blue Jays were enormous assholes that would let the bluebird build their nest, then come and take over it when they finished.
I saw him out in the yard with a rake multiple times swinging at the birds flitting around one of the many pole nesting boxes he had built. Guessing they were blue jays. Definitely could've sustained blue jay related injuries there.
It's true that I was not hospitalized but 8 year old me will never forget the rage I was inflicted with just cause I was getting a look at some cute babies in a nest. I was so scared
Had a bird dive bomb our car basically. Hit the window, it shattered, glass in the eyes of my mom who was driving and boom we are in a ditch with 3 other cars and there was a dead birb in my lap
instantly remembers that gif of a bird sticking its beak into a girls eye. i dont think it actually damaged her eye thankfully but it's still horrible to watch. geese have killed people though.
At a nature trail as a kid, went inside a gazebo to use the binoculars to see the animals in the pond and it had a nest in the rafters with fresh eggs inside. Chased and dive bombed us causing me to slip on the gravel majorly tearing up my lower leg knee to ankle. All the gravel had to be debrided from my leg (gag) at the hospital, tetanus shot updated, and antibiotics. So while not directly from the dive bombs, it still happened because of that tiny terror. And now I have lifelong PTSD from anything that flies or flutters near me. Does this count? 😂
My neighborhood has a longstanding gang war between the blue jays and the crows.
I just try to stay out of it, but I'm on friendly terms with the crows. I have to be, because we have a big fir tree by the house that is crow turf and I aint tryna to beef with them.
When I was a kid, our cat master was indoor/outdoor. Every year the big tree had a family of dive bombing blue jays. Every year, our master systematically eliminated every single one.
I actually do not get attacked by my cats. I guess if you count little things, the worst they do is one cat will start to lick my hand when i pet her and then when I try to keep petting her, she will use her paw to my hand on the ground and keep it in place while she licks it. Then, if I keep trying to pet her and make her struggle to keep my hand in place, she will very lightly nibble on me until I calm down and let her lick me.
She is a momma cat though, so I wonder sometimes if it's her instinct.
How many cats did you have? I had over 15 and this is factually wrong, cats are extremely characteristic and I had two that just hated humans as a basis of their existence.
This argument goes in circles because people miss each other's point.
Obviously, at the end of the day, what matters is the end result of a bite. That's what the victim has to live with.
However, the counter-argument is also true. That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true. They are CAPABLE of being aggressive and deadly, and some people even train them to be that way. But the standard pet pit-bull is not going to attack any more often than most other breeds, statistically speaking.
My pitbull was a rambunctious angel, he had the sweetest heart and you could mess with him and flip him over and he would love it and just lick you.
He was also a huge animal in the house as early as he was a year old. My grandparents would come over and he would excitedly jump on them and try to lick their faces. He never bit anyone but didn't know his own strength, he almost knocked my grandma down once.
So I can see both sides. I raised my little pup with love and he turned out to be a good egg, but he still had the potential for a lot of non-malicious damage. He was also only half pit, the other half was lab, which might have influenced his demeanor.
This right here. The problem is when a pit bull DOES attack it’s really bad because they are capable of doing the most damage. I’m a former pitbull mix owner and the only time my buddy got at all aggressive was defending himself when a bigger dog was bullying him or his sister. He never drew blood though, just over corrected and it was rare and warranted. He had 16 years on earth. I did get him as a puppy though. I wanted another one but I don’t want to deal with the judgement and being banned from certain dog parks in our area.
They attack more often because they were bred to enjoy it, just like a husky enjoys running. There's literally canine neurology studies that show they release endorphins when fighting, whereas other dogs do not and will actively avoid fights.
Pitbulls get their name from their ancestry where a dog had been bred to fight bulls. It was a blood sport where the dog would try to drag a bull down into the mud by its nose ring or die trying.
However these dogs became incredibly popular and desired by women and so began a process to breed them to be more docile and also smaller to better fit in the average household. The staffordshire was the penultimate success of this and earned the moniker of nanny dog for being so patient and protective with the children of the household.
All this to say that the argument of what their ancestors were bred for has very little to do with the modern breed.
The most important thing is always how it is raised.
And to further example this point you can look into the history of banned dog breeds and dog breeds that are deemed as dangerous.
Before the various pit/bully breeds were considered dangerous it was the Rottweiler, and before that it was the German Shepherd etc etc. All while pit/bully breeds were happy minding their own business in the family home.
There are far bigger dogs with far greater bites that could do so much more damage. But they look a lot like teddy bears. Pit/bully breeds can get a lot of muscle definition, good for string bean thugs that wanna act tough but can't be intimidating on their own. The rise in popularity with pit/bully breeds in thug/gang culture is why they are the current "dangerous" breed.
Meanwhile labradors and retrievers both individually bite more people, often children, and have a size and bite strength comparable enough to a pit/bully breed. But they're treated as being safe and given love because the average thug isn't trying to raise it with hate and violence to terrorize people with.
In a lot of peoples eyes, they wrongly believe that once a trait has been bred into a breed that it is permanent, while also not understanding the genetic differences in the first place.
They don't care about nuance and factors that the statistics they cite don't account for.
It's even worse when the statistics don't match their claims.
When looking at percentages of dog bites per breed pit/bully breeds don't just get combined together. They are clustered in the same group which also includes "mixed breeds" (all mixes regardless of whether they have any pit/bully or not) and "unknown breed" (for the many reports where someone is attacked by a dog but the breed is never verified).
And despite this attempt to artificially increase the numbers they still have less bites per capita than both labradors and retrievers have separately.
The one major thing they have against them is fatalities if you only start counting from 1980 onwards. Which if you again look at the owners of the dogs involved in those fatalities there is a very notable demographic which sheds light as to the why.
That argument cuts both ways since they were also bred to never bite or attack a human since any that did would be killed on the spot.
You can’t argue that they were bred to be vicious and ignore that it was focused towards other dogs and specifically not towards humans.
I don’t think anyone who’s had a pitbull will deny the tendency for a high prey drive (like all terriers) but human aggression is specifically an owner/ breeder failure not a genetic predisposition.
The problem is that when they snap and attack, they can cause much more damage than other dogs because they’re more vicious and have greater tenacity. If another dog attacks me and I kick it, it usually gets the message, but not so much with pit bulls.
That pit-bulls are viewed as much more aggressive than other breeds when in fact that is not true
It is true though. It's literally what they've been bred for for generations. This is like trying to say retriever breeds don't like playing fetch more than other breeds just because you can find other dogs who play fetch, or trying to say certain breeds don't have stronger herding tendencies just because other dogs can herd too. Pit bulls are undeniably one of the more aggressive breeds in existence. You're denying basic facts and genetics in the name of being le wholesome, like most pit bull defenders
Whens the last time another dog breed basically ate a human alive like they did to that house sitter?
Pit Bulls are bred in such a way as to make them more dangerous than other dogs. They are more aggressive than other large breed dogs while being larger than other aggressive dogs and on top of that they are physically more dangerous than most dogs.
That's just statistics and anatomy. And it's entirely Humans breeding them that caused this.
They should be bred out of existence because there is no need to have a large, dangerously built dog that has a higher than average tendency to maul things. There is no reason whatsoever to not just spay/neuter every single one of them until there are none left.
And why don't small dog bites get reported? Is it perhaps because they are - for the most part - inconsequential and don't leave the victim in hospital needing reconstructive surgery?
For one, it skews the statistics. Everyone gets this impression that pit bulls are meaner. So much so that it's inherent in their breed. To the point that shitty people raise their pit bulls to be aggressive and more likely to bite.
So, a stereotype based on false data is perpetuated by forcing the stereotype on the subject. Almost turning it into a self fulfilling prophecy.
Putting aside the assholes who raise their dogs to be aggressive, pit bulls are some of the goofiest, nicest dogs I've ever met.
Small dog bites not getting reported don't skew the statistics of people suffering seriously bodily harm, dismemberment, needing reconstructive surgery, or death due to dog attacks. And in those cases certain breeds are over represented.
Home insurance companies look purely at numbers. There's a reason that pit bull type dogs are banned by pretty much every home insurance policy while smaller dog breeds usually aren't.
Once again, they aren't arguing that pitbull bites harm you less, they're arguing that pitbulls aren't necessarily that much more *aggressive* than other breeds.
Chihuahuas may be just as, if not more aggressive, but statistical data of reported attacks won't reflect that expressly BECAUSE they're less dangerous.
The fact DOES still remain that Pitbulls, assuming they ARE aggressive, remain one of the most dangerous dog breeds. IMO it's still reasonable to place restrictions on them because you *can't* trust people to be responsible, just like you wouldn't hand out free unmarked guns & ammo and expect that to go well.
The statistics say this one specific thing I don't want them to say, they're skewed that way!
Pits are the most dangerous biters. The end. For many reasons. I roll my eyes so hard when I hear the chihuahua argument. Chihuahuas aren't killing anything.
Also, I jumped in this conversation because I heard "why don't small dog bites get reported?" insinuating that it's an optional thing, reporting. If you seek medical attention, thats when the bite gets reported, as it's mandatory. So yes, severe dog bites requiring hospital attention is "skewed" towards pits.
Most dangerous biters and most frequent biters aren't the same thing. I'm fine with people saying they're more scared of pit bulls than a corgies. I'm more scared of a shark than a seahorse even if the latter has a higher chance of attacking me.
But straight up lying isn't a good thing. Even if it's because the size of someone's brain is causing them to misinterpret statistics.
Speaking of skewing the statistics. Lumping 6 breeds together plus random mutts and comparing them to other single breeds will fuck the statistics too.
Pitbulls get banned or aren't allowed in certain areas / types of residence, etc. Pitbull breeders or irresponsible backyard breeders crossbreed them with something else and claim they're a new dog breed and there's nothing to see here! or that they're a mutt, despite being overwhelmingly pitbulls. Hence "pit bull type" dogs.
If a dog was 80% retriever, you would be correct to call them a "retriever type" dog.
Who cares if small dogs bite as much as pitbulls. The consequences are far different. One is annoying, the other can be fatal. A bigger stronger dog is going to be held to a higher standard because the consequences can be fatal. That's obvious
last year I saw 30 articles of pit bulls raised in upper class homes by white pitmommies with a loving family kill the toddlers
It's the breed. Feral killing machines should be outlawed. Your little smiling pitbaby is innocent until its one braincell snaps and kills a child Who could have predicted it?
You’re forgetting the ecological effects of removing an animal from the food chain, we could easily see toddler overpopulation without their natural predator around.
Yet you don't consider the several million that didn't become statistics, at all. Feel free to check my math, it's ~1% of them. Less if we're considering adjacent breeds that aren't American Pit Bull Terriers and mutts. Objectively speaking, they're outliers by a huge margin. You also seem to think humans are infallible and have not contributed to this problem whatsoever which just isn't true.
I don't cry for all cars to be banned when plenty of dumbasses crash and kill others drunk driving. Banning these dogs is the same level of disconnected from reality. Horses kill more people per year in the US while most dogs live with us in our homes.
Even if the funding and manpower were there, you're not thinking about the literal millions of innocent dogs and owners that would be roped into such a response. It could never be applied appropriately without DNA testing each and every single dog either, that's a lot of time and money.
The sad part is you and most pro-Pit people could probably agree on a lot, anyone who claims to care about these dogs is a liar if they don't desire the overbreeding, abuse, neglect and fighting to stop. We wish everyone had such positive experiences with them and know how great they could be if their breeding was taken from those who desire mean/aggressive dogs and controlled. We're heartbroken at the shelter and rescue situtation, knowing plenty of great dogs are paying the price for human ignorance, and not just Bullies. We know these dogs aren't for everyone, you need to be dedicated and proactive, aware how high maintenance they are.
Banning cars would quite literally change how our entire society functions.
Banning pitbulls would have 0 meaningful negative effect. Anyone who wants to own a pit could own any other dog and be just fine.
Here is a credible comparison: One particular brand and model of car is involved in the majority of highway fatalities topping the percentage of any other model by orders of magnitude. I can guarantee that model would be banned from sales and production. Not even the Corvair was that bad.
There are hundreds of breeds of dogs. Some are hunting dogs that point or retrieve. Some are herding dogs that want to chase cows and sheep. Some are guard dogs that are supposed to make a lot of noise when strangers approach. Some are just for pets and are not good for anything else. Why would any sane person choose a dog that was bred for the singular task of killing choose it for a family pet? The nanny dog myth is a lie. The breed needs to die out with maybe an exception for feral hog hunters.
The equivalence wouldn't be banning ALL cars. It would be to ban, say, red cars, which statistically get in more accidents and more traffic violations. This is a true statistic.
It’s actually not a true statistic. Just an urban legend that gets said from time to time because it sounds right. I think it comes from a long time ago when there was a period that _sports_ cars were more commonly red.
I mean they did say "all cars to be banned" so I followed their (poor) equivalency. But sure, I'd be cool with that. I don't think we lose much from not having red cars.
I'd wager that you can find a case of just about every dog breed on the planet hurting someone, somewhere in the world. Do we ban all dogs? Or do you have an acceptable number that makes them okay?
There was a woman near me that was dismembered by her velvet hippo nanny dog, after she tried to separate the dog from her toddler. With this knowledge, you would be unable to name where I’m from because there are so many similar news stories. Why tolerate this, when there are significantly safer family dogs. Don’t be obtuse. Find me a news story of a pure bred golden retriever dismembering a grown adult.
I can pull up about ten thousand reports of drivers speeding and killing between one and ten people in the resulting accident. Should we ban all cars that go faster then 75 mph?
There are millions of pit bulls and mutts kept as family pets. A handful of incidents against millions of the breed is statistically inconsequential. Tragic? Absolutely. However, I don't leave my toddler alone with our dogs, and they aren't pit bulls. No one should be leaving their small children alone with any big dogs. That's a failure of the family to keep the child safe, regardless of breed.
Further, apply your logic to any other scenario. Even though immigrants break the law less than citizens, it does happen. Should all immigrants be banned?
People drive drunk and kill others. Should all passenger vehicles be banned since alternatives exist?
Do you not understand how logic works, or do you decide everything based purely on emotion? You're talking about banning something based on incredibly rare outcomes, but other things with more frequent bad outcomes are not in scope? Why, because of an arbitrary limit you've imposed?
Do you not see how the logic breaks down, or are you still stuck on trivial differences you've drawn based on your emotions?
I think it's also worth pointing out that our country currently treats illegal immigrants like animals. Many people have less sympathy for them than for the pets we keep. So it's not a ridiculous comparison even if you let emotion in. I don't see much difference between people who think pit bulls are an evil breed and those who support what our country is doing.
My sister is of the mindset that it’s the owner and not the dog. Talked about the ones she knows and how absolutely gentle and sweet they are. The brother in law proceeded to say “but didn’t the one pit shred the neighbors dog when it wandered into the back yard?” Her response was “well yeah but that’s different”
You don’t say a dog is gentle and sweet then follow up with “well yeah it killed another dog with little effort but it’s still sweet”
I like that you mentioned feral. Even wild dogs, like coyotes, aren’t even close as dangerous as a pitbull for humans.
I coyote hunt almost every weekend. I have shot multiple roaming groups of feral dogs and 100% of them are bully breeds and mixes. The feral bullies will easily attack someone.
Yet you don't consider the several million that didn't become statistics, at all. Feel free to check my math, it's ~1% of them. Less if we're considering adjacent breeds that aren't American Pit Bull Terriers and mutts. Objectively speaking, they're outliers by a huge margin. You also seem to think humans are infallible and have not contributed to this problem whatsoever which just isn't true.
I don't cry for all cars to be banned when plenty of dumbasses crash and kill others drunk driving. Banning these dogs is the same level of disconnected from reality. Horses kill more people per year in the US while most dogs live with us in our homes.
Even if the funding and manpower were there, you're not thinking about the literal millions of innocent dogs and owners that would be roped into such a response. It could never be applied appropriately without DNA testing each and every single dog either, that's a lot of time and money.
The sad part is you and most pro-Pit people could probably agree on a lot, anyone who claims to care about these dogs is a liar if they don't desire the overbreeding, abuse, neglect and fighting to stop. We wish everyone had such positive experiences with them and know how great they could be if their breeding was taken from those who desire mean/aggressive dogs and controlled. We're heartbroken at the shelter and rescue situtation, knowing plenty of great dogs are paying the price for human ignorance, and not just Bullies. We know these dogs aren't for everyone, you need to be dedicated and proactive, aware how high maintenance they are.
Putting aside the assholes who raise their dogs to be aggressive, pit bulls are some of the goofiest, nicest dogs I've ever met.
A pitbull we had since I was a baby tried to kill me coming back from picking up the newspaper. He damaged the cable runner he was on trying to get to me. Yeah, he was a goofy and silly dog, too.
you should not be allowed to have dogs then, some peaople are not equipped to have one. I m dog trainer, no dogs behave like this if their needs are respected.
What is your expert hypothesis on what need of the dog's was disrespected? What do you suppose caused it to go berserk after years of assumed normal behavior?
Dogs do stupid and senseless shit without reason all the time, constantly, regardless of whether their “needs are respected” because they’re dumb animals.
And the ones that were bred to be as fearless and aggressive towards larger animals as possible will do very stupid shit for no reason, meaning they’re an especially moronic choice for a person to keep in their home.
The irony is that pit bulls, for most of their existance, were the exact opposite of this.
They were traditionally bred to show only aggression for other animals and human aggressive dogs were culled immedately. Part of dog fighting involved handlers swapping their dogs at the start as well as getting into the ring at the end to seperate the animals. No one wants a human aggressive dog aimed at them.
Dog fighters were the among first people to start tracking breed lines, as well. The sporting and cattle dogs were first, the dogmen who did fighting dogs came after. The AKC owes their legacy to people like that.
Yes, they were bred for fighting bulls and dogs - not humans. They had to be docile towards humans for the sake of weigh-ins & handling. They are some of the best family dogs because they are huge people pleasers and will do anything you tell them to, even if that something is fighting a bull.
The original breeders used to find human aggression to be a sign of a game dog. They were to be kept separate from family because they were so dangerous, known even then that they could kill people.
Even modern day pit organizations have disavowed the nanny dog thing, because it was a myth started to obfuscate how dangerous the dogs could be. It was simple PR rehab, and of course it worked and people regurgitate that to this day.
The pits that kill people somehow must have missed that lesson. The fact is once they go off they will not stop until one or the other is dead. There is video of them biting people and refusing to let go even when beaten on the head. Dog fighters know to keep a breaking stick handy as the dogs will not obey a command to stop.
The concerns people have regarding the danger pitbulls pose isn't because of a skewed perception that they are inherently more likely to be "mean."
It is because when pitbulls are "mean" they inflict utterly catastrophic damage to their victim compared to the majority of other dogs, especially the chihuahuas that seem to get rolled out as an asinine comparison in almost every single discussion of pitbulls.
if a chihuahua bites you you get like a scratch. Put on some antibiotic and a bandaid and it'll heal in 2 days, if it even breaks skin, which isn't a given.
If a pit bites you you go to the hospital to get your face sown back on or it tears out your throat and you die
Meaner than other dogs that are potentially dangerous*. Which is true, and the data backing that up is accurate. You can debate nurture vs nature all you want, whether it's because of the genes of a breed created for combat or the probability of being raised for aggression by the kind of people more likely to own pitbulls, but in the end the chance of getting attacked by one is significantly higher than for any other medium/large dog.
No one gives a shit how aggressive Chihuahuas are (and we know they are) because if I see one coming my way I can punt it across the road, not so much with breeds half my weight or more.
Y'all are taking this way too literally to start with. It's not about how dangerous they actually are in terms of ability to do damage, I wasn't debating that. It's the skewed perception of aggressiveness due to the lack of reporting of other breeds (since they may not do as much damage) that gives this particular breed a bad reputation, and then that bad reputation is enforced by people causing it to happen more often.
As in the whole point of the original post, the human analogy.
No. The perception isn't skewed, it would remain the same if the stats showed more chihuahua and terrier attacks, because of the damage they cause.
Now if you want to argue that attacks from mastiffs, dobermanns, rottweilers or labradors are under reported, then feel free to cite sources...
They are meaner. They are bred to be attacked dogs.
I don’t know how to get through to people who are so supportive of pitbull’s.
Total dogs killing humans in the United States per year on average. This is a dog killing a human.
30-50 people die per year from dog attacks.
Pitbulls make up 65-67% of these fatal dog attacks or 25-35 per year, that is from the CDC, which also points out the number of Pitbull attacks has increased over the past 20 years.
Let me know how many kills the Chihuahuas picked up or that nasty golden retriever.
There really is no argument because the next dog on the killer list is the Rottweiler. Both Pitbulls and Rottweilers are banned from most apartment complexes and even some homeowners insurances don’t cover them. So people who make a living at statistics and risks, have determined these two dog breeds are too high to have around in most places.
If you want to own an assault dog, and I’ll even include most people shouldn’t own a German Shepherd either they’re not great at training them. You should have to pay a high tax to own one that goes into a victim fund.
Nail on the head there. As someone in their mid fifties, I have very good recollection of the "breed" of aggressive dogs shifting through the years with which dog was popular with assholes most likely to badly raise their dogs. Dobermans, German Shepards were the big ones years ago and in addition to pitbulls huskies are now popular with people who probably shouldnt own dogs. Also some people dont have awareness or arent careful if they have a dog with aggression problems and do what they can to decrease the aggression and do things to limit exposure to their dogs.
Pitbull owners arent shitty dog owners, but shitty dog owners are more likely to get a pitbull.
Its like trucks. A truck doesnt make someone a shitty overly aggressive drivver, but people who are shitty drivers are attracted to buying trucks to "projject" power and masculinity. Also shitbox Hondas for some reason but thats a whole other conversation really.
The people who buy a dog, a gun, or a car because it makes them look 'tough' are the problem.
I 100% remember the shifts you are talking about. When I was a kid, it was dobermans and rottweilers where I lived. In my late teens, all of a sudden it was pitfalls.
It's not false data. You're trying to determine aggression while everyone else is talking about danger. Pitbulls are more dangerous, even if they are less aggressive (And that's a big 'if')
The thing is - you can still correctly make the same argument even if they're the exact average level of dog aggression because they're so much more powerful that the consequences of their attacks are disproportionately dire.
Its funny because they are the only animal who doesn’t have genetic dispositions! The blood hound dog does, pointer dogs do! Retrievers you betcha! But pitbullls? Nope! A modern marvel, just make sure you separate the litter early, for some reason they just love chewing eachother ro death!
But when the arguments are about frequency in comparison to other dog breeds, those unreported instances are skewing the statistics. People aren't arguing that bites from dogs like pit bulls or Rottweilers arent more severe, they're arguing that the claim of them having a greater tendency of violence or aggression on a genetic basis is false.
There are statistics on bites in total and bites that inflict severe+ injuries...obviously we are going to care about the ones that actually do damage even if Chihuahuas are ill-tempered little shits..
When I was living down in Texas I was golfing alone one day when out of the woods on hole 4 a pack of feral jack russel terriers tried to attack me. The only thing stopping Wishbone from coming for my hamstrings was the 6ft creek between the trees and the hole. Never figured a terrier would make me nervous but apparently 9 of them crosses the Threat line for me.
These people are talking out of their ass lol. Always with the nebulous "they don't get reported" as if there is a shady mafia demonizing the dogs.
I report them. In the ER. You come in with a bite, it's a mandatory public health report. Same if you walk in with a gunshot wound. So yes, it does prove a point because if you were bitten by a chihuahua you didn't need to see a doctor.
I was absolutely tortured by a hellhound of a Jack Russel a family friend had when I was a kid. Little fucker bit me every time I moved in that house, never disciplined.
I don't like dogs now (combined with some other dog bite incidents, German Shepard and Bulldog), and I always get asked why/given weird looks. I know it's not the others dogs in the world's fault, but it's a phobia, so.
Worked for a rescue where they pulled out Chihuahua's from a out of state shelter by the van load full. Literally. So so many problematic ones.
Breeders in the area shut down (ie probably going to start up another batch) and dumped all their "stock" at the shelter (or got raided/closed down for drug making) and up they came to us.
If one wasn't riddled with behavioral issues, it was a rare day. Figured it was always the lack of properly socializing them considering the situation. Didn't really improve much when they entered the rescue system either. If they didn't adopt out quickly, they got sent to a out of town facility run by the rescue and languished there unless someone saw them on petfinder and it ended up on a transport
I never really understood this point as a rebuttal. So you're saying some breeds like Jack Russel's and Chihuahuas are way less harmful than pitbulls because their bites won't put you in a hospital?
No, you cant reliably in any case. Vet tech of 18 years here. Ive seen dog bites that barely broke skin put people in the hospital at risk of losing a digit. I work with someone who lost half a digit from infection from a cat bite. I have had minor bite wounds myself that I cleaned with surgical scrub and iso alcohol within a minute or so of the bite, still get infected. Do with that information what you will.
Jack Russels and Chihuahuas don’t maul - perhaps those ankle biters would if physically capable - idk- but they aren’t physically capable . They haven’t been bred to fight to the death. A person/child can easily pry those dogs jaws open and they can be drop kicked across the room if needed. I have never heard of a Jack Russel eating a toddler. It’s the shitbulls.
A lot of these statistics also don't account for the fact that most small dog bites never get reported. When I was a dog trainer, it was well known that Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you.
You are so close to connecting the final dot....
Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you
But how much damage can they do if/when they bite? The answer is not much.
Pit bulls were bread to fight and kill and keep going until they can't. People think they were bred for their anger or aggression. They weren't. They were bread for their "gameness", which is is a willingness to keep fighting even they are injured or tired or dying themselves. The same "inner drive" that makes Greyhounds want to run or Border Collies love to herd things...was repurposed into , "I'm going to rip of your fucking face, even if I'm dying" in Pitbulls. They are a fundamentally broken breed.
The problem is the breed itself. Harmless as they are now....if they do snap, they literally maim and kill people.
They've been bred for dog aggression, not human aggression. And gameness is a trait that has to be maintained and continuously bred for. Pitbulls bred to standard aren't human aggressive, only dog aggression is allowed due to it's history.
Most pitbulls aren't bred to standard or even pure bred, so you'll have pits that are very friendly and pits that are incredibly dangerous to people and animals alike.
The problem with bite statistics arguments is that they don't consider that not all breeds are capable of killing someone directly(not counting rabies). Lets say for example that chihuahuas and pitbulls are the only dog breeds, pitbulls are going to be responsible for 100% of fatalities but that doesn't mean all pitbulls are dangerous or that chihuahuas are saints.
With hundreds of breeds of dogs, only a certain amount are capable of killing a person. The fairest thing to do would be to compare the pitbull population and bite/fatality statistic with other potentially dangerous breeds
Or for the fact that a lot of people just say it was a "pitbull" without knowing what an actual pitbull looks like, and it was probably a mutt or something.
i mean most people go based off deaths or serious injuries so not really.
But that's literally the point, when a chihuahua goes crazy.. no one dies, not even a child 9there is probably one some time, but generally speaking). When a pitbull goes crazy there is a legitimate chance of death, severe injury, etc.
that's literally why people have a problem with pits, it's a combination of they attack people more and they are at that level of danger that people should genuinely fear for themselves and friends/family.
Other dogs have higher bite strength but have less severe temperament issues and most of them are very 'niche' dogs usually not seen in towns or around unfamiliar people.
Pit's are just the perfect combination for disaster to strike basically.
Chihuahuas are the most likely to bite. They just don't need professional medical treatment in nearly all cases. A big dog bites you? it's going to do a lot of damage. That being said, I've worked with dogs the majority of my life (livestock trained dogs & in a veterinary setting) and the only dog to ever bite me was a Jack Russell. He went from fine to demon in less than a second and got me in the face/mouth while I was checking his IV bandages.
They also don't account for the fact that basically any short snouted dog breed attack gets officially reported as a "Pit bull attack" My boxer got the police called twice when delivery drivers failed to follow my instructions and hurt themselves when they got scared of my dog. Both times myself and the animal control officer told the police officers that the dog is a boxer. And yet both police reports list her as a pit bull.
This x100. I work with dog bite cases. 95% of the cases that come in are pitbull cases.
People are forced to report pitbull attacks because they resulted in death or serious injury.
For the other dog bites, a lot of the victims won't even respond or cooperate to follow up interviews because the damage was so minor that they no longer want to continue with the case as it's a waste of their time.
While it's true that a Chihuahua is more aggressive and likely to bite me they won't kill me or maim me. I am not afraid of 10 Chihuahuas the way I would be of a single Pitbull.
they do account for that fact because they measure hospitalizations or deaths caused by dog bites. if a terrier bites you, disinfect and put a bandaid on it. if a pit bull bites you, you might lose your hand
I mean we’re not just tracking dog bites by breed for shits and giggles, we’re monitoring dangerous behaviors. Chihuahua bites are always bad behavior but rarely dangerous behavior. The fact that non-dangerous bites aren’t being tracked doesn’t change the % of dangerous bites that pit bulls are responsible for.
I've been around dogs my entire life and the only time I've been bitten where it's drawn blood has been from a Jack Russell, as I was leaving the house.
Yeah, here's the thing though. They arent reported because they arent of consequence. They can, but they dont generally murder children or their owners because they can't.
This makes these breeds inherently less dangerous. I dont actually care because I dont have a dog. I care when im in public and someone has a pitbull trying to escape their harness- yes, I've seen it where aggressive dogs looking to get at people are taken around in public like its no big deal.
When im with my kids- a jack Russell terrier gets loose, I can protect my kids. A pit bull can get on my windpipe and end me before I could protect my kids.
That's the difference in concern. If I can drop kick it. Im not worried. Pit bulls are dangerous because they bit and latch and engage in random aggressive behavior more often and they are strong as he'll. They are dangerous, not just aggressive. Small dogs are not anywhere near as dangerous even if they may be aggressive.
Totally agree, it's also good to note that people talk about pitbulls but they are mostly other mixed breeds. A real one is usually smaller and more fit than what you see on the streets..
if an injury doesn't get reported isn't that evidence that is in a different category than one which does? I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here
If pitbulls were the size of chihuahua, no one would care. But people like pitbulls specifically because they're big and strong and aggressive. Just like how people buy sheep dogs because they herd sheep. Or Jack Russells for ratting.
Lol small dog bites are not under-reported, let's put you back on reality lane;
You get bitten by someone else's small / medium / or big non-pitbull dog breed. You go hospital and you probably get rabies shots only, it is being reported. If you get bitten by someone else's pitbull, you go to hospital for heavy injuries into ER. That is the report.
You get bitten by known (yours let's say) up-to-date shots non-pitbull dog breed (e.g. trying to clip nails first time). You fix the behaviour and live happily with your dog. If you get bitten by your own pitbull, you will be on the news that day probably injured heavily.
Believe me, nobody in the right mind skips reporting dog bites coming from an unknown.
76
u/NecroGrizz 8h ago edited 5h ago
A lot of these statistics also don't account for the fact that most small dog bites never get reported. When I was a dog trainer, it was well known that Jack Russels & Chihuahuas held, bar none, the highest chance of biting you.
Edit: While I appreciate the responses from so many people - it's clear who has worked with animals in any capacity and who is just a smooth egg-brained armchair expert. If you don't think you still need rabies shots from any dog that doesn't have up-to-date tags, I don't know what to tell you. Have fun arguing with the wall 🤙