On Tuesday, December 20, staff and students at Willard Intermediate South school were injured when two dogs identified as a pit bull mix breed made their way into the playground.
That's not a fucking pitbull then IS IT?!
The dogs were euthanized in order to be tested for rabies. The tests will be completed today, and we expect to have results within the next couple of days. During the investigation, it was determined that one of the dogs was not vaccinated and no proof could be provided that the other was up to date on its vaccinations.
So it could've been rabies but you go straight to the bullshit bioessentialism and insinuation that genetics can predispose one to violence.
Obligatory link to my effort post on this phenomenon (reddit link because the OG here is in archive limbo)
99% of the cases where a dog attacks a human can be boiled down to two things:
- The guy that was attacked provoked the dog, leaving it no other choice
- The dog's owner is a massive idiot who failed to provide for the dog's needs. Granted, some breeds are more popular among asshole owners but that is still a human problem, not a dog problem.
The whole pitbull thing is a self re-enforcing stereotype. Any dog involved in a mauling that looks somewhat like a pit is suddenly a pit. Then you have people who see that stereotype as a reason to get a pit because they want a violent dog and they train it to be violent.
There's definitely components of truth to pitbulls being more dangerous, but on the whole any dog that's trained to fight or mistreated has the capacity to become violent.
The real purpose of pairing mauling with pits is that the majority of pits are owned by poorer people as they tend to be most likely to end up in shelters with no adoption fee or are just around. Almost all of these are just mutts anyways because dog breeds aren't as static as people think.
This then allows for targeted denial of housing to people who on average have this type of dog.
Didn’t you hear? Dogs are nothing but pure and “good”. Also personality and behavior are completely independent of genetics or something.
it's an animal. they aren't moral agents like people. and anyone that trains dogs will tell you how critical socialization is to temperament later in life, for every breed.
not to insult the intelligence of dogs but when a 5 year old does something bad do you blame them or their parents?
Maybe we should just ban Americans instead.
Smartest comment in this thread
Realize I might be going against the grain here, but I do want to have an honest convo because I'm pretty skeptical of pit bulls as the owner of a small dog. For disclosure I've got pretty much two anecdotal data points for pits/bully breeds—one named Blessing who was very sweet, and one named either Bruno or Brutus who was quite aggressive towards my dog, such that his owner had difficulty reining him in.
I'm really suspicious of the term "dog racism" because to me it seems to be making a false equivalence between human races, which are largely socially constructed with no functional difference besides appearance (and things like propensity to sickle cell disease for those with African ancestry), and dog breeds, which have been subject to depending on breed, hundreds or thousands of years of selective breeding, which has real and tangible results. Bloodhounds, for instance, have souped up noses with more scent receptors than other breeds. On average, they're just better at smelling, because they have been bred to be so. This also occurs with behavior, and over enough time, certain breeds have predisposed instincts towards herding, guarding, and so forth. Why wouldn't aggression and temperament be subject to the same selective forces?
I’m really suspicious of the term “dog racism” because to me it seems to be making a false equivalence between human races
The term is less about being "racist" towards the dog and more about the breed being a conduit for human racism. If there wasn't a stereotype of pitbulls being a breed owned primarily by poor people of color, then the wouldn't be as much of a problem.
However, the pitbull is basically the only breed that's called out by name in rental applications. Owning one opens you to more harassment by people on the street, police, and landlords. And all of this just so happens to reenforce existing human racial dynamics.
If there wasn’t a stereotype of pitbulls being a breed owned primarily by poor people of color, then the wouldn’t be as much of a problem.
Is there? I have never personally noticed this stereotype in my country. If this is a thing, then I'm shocked I haven't heard about it until now in the violent-dog-breeds debate.
It's an American thing for sure. Pitbulls are considered the black man's dog here and the parallels in reporting on black men and pitbulls are almost uncanny.
That's insanely untrue where I live, in new England. I see tons of white people with pitbulls
I can assure you that my hatred of dogs that are capable of killing people in public spaces is pure.
Just look at this article, they chose an image of a seemingly violent pitbull with no context. Same as now anytime a black person is in any way involved in any sort of story they use mugshots or pictures of them from Facebook where they look violent.
Any sort of husky is generally included now along with mastiffs. Not sure on the mastiff side, but the explanation for huskies is that they are more destructive when left alone
Getting better I guess, but Pitbulls are still called out specifically in a lot of places here.
Oh yeah for sure, the last application I saw was like 10 bullet points of breeds and most were some form of pit and then •Husky •Mastiff
Small dogs are no less aggressive than large dogs. They are not reported nearly as much because the actual factor here is their physical ability. See @invalidusernamelol's comment about self reinforcing stereotypes
Also in the reddit post linked in the body text there is an excerpt from the book The Black Man's Dog about redlining.
Small dogs are no less aggressive than large dogs. They are not reported nearly as much because the actual factor here is their physical ability.
Hell I'd argue small dogs by and large are more aggressive because no one bothers to train them because what's the worst that could happen but the actual physical ability seems very important and also a genuinely good argument for legislation? I can't football-kick a pitbull like a chihuaha.
I don't have too much of an opinion of US Pitbull Ownership or legislation but "actual real life consequences of what if it goes wrong" is taken into most legislations, this seems like a bad argument. You need a driving license for a car, a harder one for anything bigger and none at all for a bicycle. Or why an AR-15 is easier to get legally than a rocket launcher.
Okay but then you get into how that could possibly be implemented and a dog is not a car. They have coevolved with us for tens of thousands of years.
Size / Weight? It's not like a german sheperd coming for you is any less dangerous
Okay but that is the sort of thing that can't be addressed in any way within our current racist capitalist hegemony without disproportionally affecting minorities.
Again I stress the reference to the book The Black Man's Dog.
If you wear clothes you're probably exploiting children, but you can't just not wear clothes.
And sure you can not own dogs but then the argument becomes should you just not own dogs? Okay, but should we also allow all these animals to be put down because nobody will adopt them?
It's a very complex issue and people are bringing up things like this that have nothing to do with the issue at hand that there is a resurgence of scientific racism and this is a part of that.
Okay but that is the sort of thing that can’t be addressed in any way within our current racist capitalist hegemony without disproportionally affecting minorities.
On the one hand: I'd say make that argument then, on the other hand I think as a leftists you kind of have to grapple with the realities of living in a stupid, unfair system and still needing some legislation as for, let's put it generally, risk containment. I don't have the numbers to argue as to whether dog attacks constitutes a problem here, just generally.
Traffic enforcement is done way, WAY more against black people, which is bad, but abolishing any sort of traffic enforcement is also bad. Ideally you'd solve this via infrastructure, but if you start tomorrow with the biggest program ever seen to rebuild the world, you're still looking at two decades of needing traffic enforcement.
And sure you can not own dogs but then the argument becomes should you just not own dogs? Okay, but should we also allow all these animals to be put down because nobody will adopt them?
I think you should just stop any commercial breeding and require pets to be neutered / spayed and go for like phase out, mostly, excluding things like Service and Therapy Animals and probably some of the better job uses like rescue dogs.
I think people are getting into the weeds about how to handle a problem that is being manufactured by reactionary media to drive a narrative around bioessentialist notions of behavior that is directly tied to race science.
Eyes on the ball people this is very insidious and people are making light of it or being dismissive of how insidious this truly is.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that a small dog can't be just as aggressive as a large dog, but I am suggesting that selective breeding can lead to change in temperament and aggression, this a predisposition towards violence, which you imply isn't true in the body of your post.
I checked out the reddit post and banning pit bulls as a means of soft-redlining makes sense, but I don't think that's super relevant to the selective breeding/instinctual behavior element I'm trying to figure out here. It claim the bans aren't based on statistical evidence, but that's there's no refutation about what evidence that gets presented(there might be in the full text but I don't have access to it).
Also in that post is DNA discourse, which I'm skeptical of—yes, a given dog might have only 40% pit bull DNA, but when it comes to behavioral heritability, as far as I understand, it's not the overall amount of genetic code but whether or not specific markers and all that are present, so if that DNA percentage happened to include the right genes then they get the behavior. I might very well be wrong on that, this is testing my high school biology knowledge so feel free to correct me!
that selective breeding can lead to change in temperament and aggression, this a predisposition towards violence, which you imply isn’t true in the body of your post.
There is no scientific evidence to support this though. There have been attempts to do so but there is no actual scientific study to support this outside of the thousands of years it took to cause dogs to become an entirely separate species from wolves.
Which it should also be noted happened because dogs chose humans as much as humans chose dogs.
If anything they are predisposed toward a communal relationship cross species which resulted in our symbiotic relationship.
This study seems to support breed genetic heritability of behavior, specifically including aggression of various types (owner, dog, stranger). I know there's other studies with different results, but I'm not at the level of literacy on (or, frankly, investment in) the topic to study up on methodology to decide which is more valid.
Species wide, yes, dogs are definitely predisposed to human-based altruism, but that doesn't mean breeds can't have higher levels of aggression than others within the same species.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Here’s a scientific study done in the Soviet Union regarding domesticating foxes. The researchers themselves noted significant behavioral differences. If that’s insufficient data due to bias, the researchers also noted significant hormonal differences (apparently hormones linked to stress response halved?)
yes but can this be attributed to genetics or the fact these animals were raised in captivity? What was the control group here?
The earlier generations here, also raised in captivity and being noted as being less domesticated, should work as a control group here or am I missing something?
I think the biggest question is how much of this behavior is taught (be it by humans or through their parents). E.G. it's already been demonstrated that crows can pass on information about potentially dangerous human individuals.
This study https://www.npr.org/2019/09/13/760666490/crows-are-they-scary-or-just-scary-smart
Well the issue is that pit bull statistics are pretty unreliable for a number of reasons.
One major factor is that people are more likely to identify a dog as being a pit bull if the dog is known to be violent, same goes for if the dogs owner is black. Breed identification is difficult so we can't just take those numbers at face value.
It's also important to note that even besides identification inconsistency, the pitbulls stereotype as a violent animal draws a very specific type of person towards them, people looking for violent animals to train into being violent. Many of them have serious trauma issues or other problems from this so even adopted pit bulls become dangerous for social reasons not natural ones.
It's not necessarily impossible that pit bulls are more violent overall but there's a lot of confounding factors that need to be sorted out, and even in the worst case scenario where pit bulls might actually have a natural tendency to violence it's still likely to be a rather small factor compared to all the other causes, especially when breed stereotypes are likely overrated to begin with. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639
insinuation that genetics can predispose one to violence.
I agree this is problematic, and I feel a lot of the blame that falls on this type of dog has to be pointed at the owners. But (anecdotally) even the ones in a balanced family were more aggressive than other dogs, and when biting they wont let go as fast as others. That in combination with the frequency you read about incidents does make me wonder if they are closer to their instincts than other breeds
You're right that is anecdotal evidence, and Pits have only been recognized as a distinct breed for about ~200 years.
I encourage you to read that post I linked which contains all of what can be considered scientific study on this subject.
There is also a media feedback loop about sensationalized pit bull stories. Think about why that might be especially after you get to the quote from The Black Man's Dog by Ann Linder.
when biting they wont let go as fast as others
This is also a myth, the "locking jaw" trope
This is also a myth, the “locking jaw” trope
I think people hugely underestimate how strong any dog's jaws can be, I have a 10 year old puggle and can still swing her around while she holds onto a toy.
Reminds me of how alligators (I think? Maybe crocodiles) have immense crushing force with their bite but next to no strength in the reverse, so wranglers and wrasslers can just hold their jaws shut and there's nothing they can do.
:wojak-nooo: "I'm an apex predator!!!! You can't just prevent me from death-rolling you"
:yes-chad: "lmao get clamped idiot"
My girlfriend works in a shelter, pitt bulls and sheperds are the two types of dogs that are most in fights, pitbulls holding on longer. I don’t say there are no other reasons beside the breed but I don’t doubt there is a small part in their genes that cause part of it, not on the scale the media says I agree.
I’m not saying their bite is stronger, they just don’t let go as soon as others.
Also, I’m probably not online enough, but why would this be reactionary?
Again that is anecdotal evidence.
The trait you are thinking of is gameness which is present in many breeds and it is akin to determination. Again this is a behavioral trait and the idea that behavioral traits are inherently genetic is used to justify racism, that is one of the foundations of the concept.
Also the group of breeds associated with the Pit Bull label has existed for a relatively short period of time so the idea that those traits could be developed within such a short period of time without being present in all other breeds is where it becomes problematic.
the bias against pit bulls is so fucking strong and pervasive, i tried to bring up that recent study that shows breed has very little effect on behavior to my partner's cousin at a family function a while back and i stg you'd think i had told her she could fly if she just jumped and missed the ground
just immediate, fierce rejection of the idea that pit bulls could be anything other than vicious little genocide enthusiasts, from an otherwise mostly reasonable person. it's awful.
Hexbear really disappointing me this morning. Got a bunch of reactionary comments in this thread already. Fuck these people.
yeah jesus what the fuck, i'm just reading through the comments now and i see a few people who need to get their head out of their asses
You had to post a pitbull thread…these always bring out the worst vibes. The anti-pitbull brigade is disappointing.
We have to do house cleaning once in a while and this already caught one reactionary.
But seriously I made this post because I saw a news article that reminded me of the 90s era pit bull hysteria that coincided with a bunch of other racist tropes.
:vegan-liberation: All dog breeding is bad and all dog breeds are bad.
Okay but this is not in defense of breeding. Rescuing dogs is good especially breeds that are the most euthanized because of this race science shit in disguise.
Please know the difference.
Tell that to the people spouting reactionary shit in this thread. I swear every time pit bulls are mentioned someone shows their ass.
We are not immune to propaganda. :garf-troll:
And there's a lot of propaganda.
There is certainly a discussion to be had about domesticated dogs, I disagree that it's inherently immoral as another poster said because the domestication of dogs (like cats) was a much more mutual affair than other domesticated animals in human history, but selective breeding is absolutely a horrible practice.
As for licensing or anything like that I don't even know how that would look, but those are not what this post is about.
Like I said that is a discussion for a different thread of its own feel free to post it!
This is specifically about how pit bull hysteria is born out of stereotypes regarding genetic predisposition to violence.
I'm sick of dogs. People should cherish quails, texel-coated rodents, well-behaved swine, illustrious peafowl of noble providence.
ⓘ This user does not have a Mughal Garden to host their extensive menagerie
The worst thing about the pitbulls I know is that they're too full of love and I have to employ ridiculous contortions to avoid being licked in the face. I offer this here to cancel out any negative anecdote.
Right?! The only thing I have ever been afraid of is getting punched in the nuts when they jump on me to lick me.
yeah, the OP can get fucked. tired of seeing the "dOg RaCiSM" shit on hexbear.
Hi just came from the sub, I'm floored. So fucking arrogant lmao.
Everyone distilling this to nonexistent bite statistics is failing outright.
The amount of injury able to be caused by a dog is key.
Why is the physiology of the dog completely removed from the discussion in order to talk about how we need more good boys?
Probably easier to talk about their hobby. Rather than the people breeding and buying dogs that have the strength to take on a human being in the first place. Why are you so particular about having an animal with its own agency and the ability to tear a child apart? Just to prove you're so good at training that it won't happen.
Dogs don't bite people, owners abusing them bite people, I guess. Oh but don't forget it's usually the fault of people bothering the dogs according to one comment. How exactly did they get that statistic?
as a kid, i loved all dogs, but i remember my white suburban parents inculcating a sense of "other" for pit bulls. i didn't start appreciating them until i moved out
This is why I’m just cautious of all large dogs. Even if a small dog is aggressive it can’t rip your fucking face off.
"mixed breed large dogs"
Again that's a worthwhile conversation but this is not about that. People in this thread are trying really hard to sidestep the actual issue at hand.
Insanely racist to compare humans to pitbulls by calling this "dog racism". People aren't breeds and different breeds of dogs have material differences that shouldn't be ignored.
Why the link "Pit bulls, the Proletariat, and Racism"? How do you explain the overwhelming amount of dog attacks by the aforementioned breed in other countries where there isn't the race connection?
Part of an Australian study undertaken by Thompson of the South Australian Health Commission (SAHC) analysed emergency department surveillance data for a major public hospital for the period January 1990 to July 1993. A total of 356 dog attacks were identified. Three-quarters of hospital treated attacks were caused by 5 of 160 available breeds. The breeds of dog recorded for these cases were as follows: German Shepherds (25.3%); Bull Terriers (13.6%); Blue or Red Heelers (13.6%); Dobermans (11.7%); and Rottweilers (9.1%). More than half of the cases occurred in a street or public place by loose, uncontrolled dogs. Data collected through the Adelaide 1992 Omnibus Survey, which obtained information from interviews with 3,093 randomly selected people, provided information about the dog population. For the purposes of the study, a representation ratio was calculated for the breeds that were involved in attacks by dividing the percentage of attacks per breed by the percentage of the total dog population represented by the same breed. Thompson concluded that the relative risk of attack by a German Shepherd was 5 times greater than a Collie. The relative risk of being attacked by a Doberman was even higher (Thompson, 1997).
Some earlier work undertaken at the SAHC, used surveillance data collected from three Adelaide public hospitals to identify the breeds involved in dog attacks. In 75% of a total of 4,500 cases, the attacks had occurred to family members or friends of the dog owner and, thus, there was a fair degree of confidence in most cases that the breed of dog had been correctly identified. An estimate of the dog population was derived from a sample of 18,000 dogs registered with local government authorities. Six breeds, which accounted for 21.5% of the dog population, were involved in close to three-quarters of all identified attacks: Bull Terriers (13.4% of attacks, 2.5% of dog population); German Shepherds (33.6% of attacks, 8.0% of dog population); Dobermans (8.0% of attacks, 2.0% of dog population); Rottweilers (7.8% of attacks, 3.0% of dog population); Blue Heelers (7.1% of attacks, 3.0% of dog population); and Collies (3.7% of attacks, 3.0% of dog population) (South Australian Health Commission 1990).
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/f65ce1c9-b794-4886-9232-97318ce27eae/injcat75.pdf
Do these account for all dog attacks? Probably not. But they would account for all dog dog attacks that are severe enough to require admission to hospital. Isn't it weird that breeds such as Bull Terriers, German Shepherds and Rottweilers are disproportionally represented in comparison to general population when it comes to dog attacks that cause moderate to severe injury.
And Australia does not have the same race connection to owners of particular dog breeds that is implied by your link.
People do not need to own these breeds of dogs.
No it isnt weird they are large strong dogs and even here german shepherds are double that of pits. This just reinforces my point if anything.
I was being facetious.
And how exactly does in reinforce your point? I'm no targeting just pit bulls. All of these breeds that fall well outside the norm and have the capacity to cause severe injury should be restricted in ownership.
There is no need for anyone to own these breeds of dogs. They aren't working dogs for tasks such as herding sheep. They're pets. Want a pet dog? Get a shih tzu or an italian greyhound.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
People really show their ass about how badly this strain of propaganda has poisoned their brains when trying to jump through hoops to justify dog racism
Define "better", cuz dogs make milk just fine.
Like every mammal.
Is a Rottweiler? How about a German Shepherd? Or a Catahoula? How about a Ridgeback? See how this is a stupid arguement?
Okay and implement that how? Through the racist redlining approach detailed in the post I linked?
All dogs are dangerous and we have coevolved for tens of thousands of years so what are you advocating? There are only two conclusions to this and that is the forced extinction of domesticated dogs or selective breeding both of which are bad.
Gonna ban all cats too?
See where this goes?
Remember dogs (and cats) are not like other domesticated animals we essentially domesticated each other (in the case of cats I would say there is an argument to be had that they domesticated us).
