Pin it! alex.kenemer, nowsourcing, thatjonjackson and 11 others like this
Pit Bulls get a bad rep, but studies show the common perception of their violent behavior is not often in their nature. Loyal sweet dogs– I have one.
Added in infographics I worked on
alex.kenemer, nowsourcing, thatjonjackson and 11 others like this
Pit Bulls get a bad rep, but studies show the common perception of their violent behavior is not often in their nature. Loyal sweet dogs– I have one.
5 comments
Login to comment →
pastorjamesburke 11 years, 8 months ago
"A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%). A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds. A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull
Reply
alex.kenemer 11 years, 8 months ago
@pastorjamesburke "wikipedia is not a credible source" -Abraham Lincoln
Reply
pastorjamesburke 11 years, 8 months ago
wikipedia is a quick source from which to list more academic, credible sources in a small space, such as this comment box. Every study in the quote I copied is properly cited and taken from peer reviewed sources. Pit bulls are dangerous. If they weren't, why did the article not compare basic data such as unprovoked dog bites by breed?
Reply
alex.kenemer 11 years, 8 months ago
I think I'll believe National Geographic's research over Wikipedia's no offense. Plus your sources are from before I was born...so...that data could be breedist since you know, pits have a bad rep and all– ever read To Kill a Mocking Bird? Finally, it did address fatal attacks. You are 16x more likely to drown in a 5 gallon bucket.
Reply
williebence 11 years, 8 months ago
@pastorjamesburke
The overarching problem with studies such as the ones you quoted is that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that the offending breed is identified. The studies you quoted were based off hospital dog bite data, where the breed was "identified" by either the victim or their accompanying parent/guardian. The flaw in this is that the hospital simply takes the reporting party's word as accurate with no potential for any real verification that the attacking dog was indeed a pit bull.
The fact of the matter is that a majority of dog bite victims who are unsure of the attacking breed will default to identifying the dog as a pit bull. Their reputation as a vicious attack dog precedes them and many will assume that if an unknown dog bit them, it must be a pit bull. If they are unsure of what breed it may be, it's a pit bull. Very few of these people both get a good enough look at the dog to make an accurate identification, let alone have enough knowledge to accurately identify dog breeds.
And there is absolutely ZERO way to confirm or deny these reports from victims, unless the dog was caught. Even then if animal control determines it is a different breed, the hospital won't go back and change their report data. Neither will the news media after reporting a pit bull attack and already pushing the story out to the public. Once the false identification is out there, it's out there, even if it is completely incorrect.
Long story short, these reports are based off of incredibly shaky evidence and in no way speaks to how many attacks are actually perpetrated by dog breeds that fall under the pit bull category.
And finally, even when attacks are perpetrated by pit bulls, that says nothing about their temperament and disposition as a breed - that only speaks to their owners and the dogs training. I don't know if you actually read the graphic, but according to the American Kennel Club, pit bulls rank alongside golden retrievers and border collies in their temperament tests. As dangerous as a golden retriever? How terrifying!
Reply