A reader writes, in response to my Troublemakers article:
As an emergency vet in Las Vegas, I see lots of pit bulls. I would rather work on a pit bull than any other breed as they are very sincere and don't change their temperament 1/2 way through the exam. They let me know up front —" I'm going to kill you if I get the chance", and they get muzzled and drugged. Many german shepard dogs, american eskimos and some retrievers will decide that they want to eat my jugular veins as I listen their heart after giving no indication of aggression up to that point. They are very dangerous. I think the most vicious breeds are daschunds and chihuahuas.
I realize that I've said a great deal about Pit Bulls already. But this is a very interesting point. I've heard now over and over again versions of what the reader above says—namely that what distinguishes the Pit Bull breed, above all else, is its stability and evenness of temperament. This is, in fact, why so many bad actors have, in recent years, made the Pit Bull their dog of choice. If you are going to abuse a dog, and encourage it to do socially hostile things, and leave it chained up and frustrated, the Pit Bull is a far better pet than, say, a Rottweiler or Doberman for the simple reason that a Pit Bull will accept an awful lot more maltreatment than other dogs, and will much more clearly telegraph its intentions in time of stress. In other words, what makes Pit Bulls over-represented in dog bite statistics is not just a product of the dark side of their character (their ferocity and status as fighting dogs) but the good side of their character (their evenness of temperament.)
This is a paradox that is not confined to dogs. For instance, for years people in the pharmaceutical business have been aware of the fact that a large number of reported adverse reactions to a particular drug can mean one of two things. The obvious meaning is that a drug is dangerous. The other meaning is that a drug is SO much better and safer and more effective than any other drug in its class that it tends to be given to the sickest and most troubled patients.
If, for example, a drug company company came up with the best anti-depressant in the world—something twice as good as Prozac—we would EXPECT that drug to be associated with, say, more reports of suicide ideation. Why? Because it would be prescribed overwhelmingly to the hardest cases, to the most depressed and suicide-prone sector of the psychiatric population.
The point is that we need to be very careful in the way we interpret statistics purporting to show that one kind of dog, or one kind of drug, or one kind of anything, is more dangerous than other things in its class.
Hello,
I just wanted to say thank you for last night :)...I was at the CT Forum at the Bushnell and really enjoyed your quick witted comments and humor.
I wasn't sure what to expect from the evening but went home to my beagle and just continued to laugh...
Thank you again for a refreshing evening out.
Posted by: Trish Kelly | April 06, 2006 at 10:21 AM
I have a pitbull chihuahua mix whos the greatest dog ive ever owned but im looking for another one to breed her with.if you have a male blease email me and let me know thank you
Posted by: HiPpO | April 12, 2006 at 05:44 PM
I worked as a consultant at Merck for several years. One of the VP's there stated (internally of course): "I want everyone in the country on Lipitor."
I saw all the internal statistics and studies on Vioxx. There is probably nothing wrong with the drug, but because they prescribed it indiscriminately just to exceed sales projections and get bonuses, they dug themselves into a situation they can't really get out of. In peoples minds, Vioxx is like Thalidomide now.
Posted by: srs | April 20, 2006 at 08:22 AM
A dog reflects its owner.
Check out this picture - a placid pitbull who loves to sit on people's chairs.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46325163@N00/131048234/
Posted by: Ronny Max | April 20, 2006 at 02:58 PM
i have a pitbull and have had others as pets in the past and all waere and are great animals but no more agresive than thers there just news worthy because when a strong tenasious pitbull attacks its ugly , but why cant i watch that ankel biter down the block at 6pm tormenting every other person walking by so watch your mouth
Posted by: watch your mouth | April 22, 2006 at 09:54 PM
Pitbulls are great dogs. I,ve raised them all my life, and have never had one with a bad temperment. Of course, I,ve never raised them to fight either. What about aggressive humans? we all know some. Maybe they should be put down. Hows that for affirmitive action? And finally, If you think that a good dog like a bully should be banned, Your just a pussy, because you have never grown balls and owned a real dog.
Posted by: Bfoster | April 24, 2006 at 09:36 PM
I am a member of a dog club in the NYC suburban area, on Long Island. I've taught pet classes and dealt with pet dogs (vs show animals) for more than 10 years. I'd rather deal with a Pit Bull owned by a normal, rational good dog owner then a smalll dog owned by someone who doesn't understand that a small dog STILL has teeth and the instincts of a canine. I am far more likely to be growled at or outright bitten by a small dog spoiled rotten by a clueless owner then a Pit.
People who don't understand this probably think all dogs are either Cujo or Lassie with nothing at all inbetween. If you want to understand Pit Bulls and Pit mixes go talk to some dog people.
BTW most people have no clue what they are talking about when they call something a "Pit Bull". Half the time it's something like a Cocker Spaniel. If you've been following the story of the lost Whippet here in NYC and how it's been seen, you can see that effect. People have supposedly seen this animal. Whippets have color patterns very much like those of Pits and Pit-mixes. Given where the Whippet has been seen (south-east Queens, home of the stray Pit), I would bet a month's salary that the "Whippet" they've seen was a Pit, especially when you consider that the owners of the Whippet put up signs, LARGE REWARD!!!
Posted by: Sligo | April 27, 2006 at 04:38 AM
I think issue of whether pit bulls are dangerous or not is not the true issue. All dogs are dangerous, they have big teeth and they bite when they're pissed, scared, anxious, hungry, happy, etc. I was severely attacked by a cocker spaniel when I was younger - the friend that was with me required reconstructive surgery on her face - but you didn't see my parents out picketing for a ban on all cocker spaniels did you? Unsocialized dogs will chase a little kid that is running around in the back yard screaming and giggling like little girls do. It's not rocket science folks. People need to be taught how to behave around dogs and dogs need to be taught how to behave around people and other animals. The scary part of pit bull bans, or other bans is that there is NO OBJECTIVE METHOD TO IDENTIFY A DOG'S BREED. Period. Not even genetics. It's based entirely on morphology and phenotype. So guess what, if the animal control officer in Denver thinks your boxer-lab mix is a pit, then it's a pit. You can't prove it isn't and they can't really prove it is, but under the statute if it looks "predominately pit bull" then it falls into the pit bull category and is per se vicious. This is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process. You arent' given an opportunity to prove that your dog isn't vicious, so find it a new home or it gets put to sleep. That doesn't really sound very American now does it? To emphasize my point take a look at this website on the scary issues of breed misidentification - see if you can identify the different breeds.
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
Posted by: Crissa | May 01, 2006 at 05:12 PM
Here is a great video for those of you who do not have much experience with pit bulls other than from their portrayal in the media.
http://server.inalbum.com/show/jodipreis/Message_to_the_Media2.html?296033009
Posted by: Crissa | May 08, 2006 at 10:28 AM
A few mistakes have been posted above. First of all, pit bulls were never bred for protection, at least not from people. They were often used on farms to protect livestock from other animals. The modern breed is descended from early english bull baiting dogs. The name pit bull comes from the practice of putting the dogs in pits full of rats as a sport to watch them kill the rodents. Dog fighting became popular later and pit bulls were found to excel at it.
In fact, pit bulls have been kept on farms, and in urban households for hundreds of years as family pets. They have been renowned for their friendliness and good temperment with children. The breed reached it height of popularity in the 1930s due to the Our Gang series and its pit bull character "Pete the Pup". In those days nearly every child in America wanted to own a pit bull. I would still recommend that every child should have a pit bull. They are the best pets in the world.
To the extent that pit bulls kill or maim people, a ban would reduce the problem, except that they are really a minor part of the problem. Despite their huge popularity as pets, only one out of 55 dogs involved in 23 fatalities in Canada since 1983 was a pit bull. In Ontario, the statistics show that German Shepherds were involved in the most fatal dog attacks.
So what exactly is a ban on pit bulls trying to achieve, besides quick headlines for a dimwitted attorney general? It surely won't save lives for all those people attacked by dogs that aren't pit bulls. It has already led to the deaths of countless innocent dogs in shelters and the abandonment of many others.
The alleged viciousness of pit bulls is more urban legend than reality. A few cases are picked up in the media and blown out of proportion while other dog attacks are ignored.
When the law was being proposed, every single professional group - veterinarians, breeders, kennel clubs, etc. opposed the law as ill conceived and ineffective. The Ontario Medical Veterinary Association offered to help the government draft and effective law and were turned down.
We can only hope that last week's court challenge will be successful, and the pit bull will be restored to its status as a popular family pet in Ontario. Otherwise, you can be sure that it will become an issue in the next election. Stupid laws like this don't stay on the books unchallenged forever.
Posted by: Bryan | May 21, 2006 at 08:00 PM
My dog is half pitbull and half Husky. She's so pretty!
Posted by: Jessica | May 25, 2006 at 12:35 PM