You've probably seen them- the APBT lovers who claim the only dog aggressive pits are the select few bed by Bad People to dog fight, or pits that have been abused.
They claim that aggression can be avoided by socialization or training.
But the fact is, pits ARE much more likely than labs or beagles or many other common breeds to show dog aggression. And in many cases, true dog-dog aggression isn't something you can train or socialize away.
Different types of aggression in dogs--dog directed vs human directed, reactivity vs true aggression--are mediated by different mechanisms, so I'm not saying pits are inherently dangerous to humans. Hell, most pits are even good with other dogs... but a greater percentage than many other popular breeds are dog aggressive, and their relative muzzle width and terrier tenacity makes them capable of considerable damage.
I'm not just talking about anecdotal evidence. I'm a scientist, so
here's some scientific evidence (Applied Animal Behavior Science, 2008)-
In addition to the scientific evidence above, more involved pit people seem to agree that this is an innate issue to many pits- source 1, source 2, source 3.
The worst deniers often seems to be Joe Schmos with a friendly pit at home. Do these dog-aggression-deniers not realize they're harming the reputation of the breed more by not being honest with themselves and others? I feel potential dog aggression is really a trait people should be aware of when they get a breed predisposed to it. If dog aggression is an absolute dealbreaker for someone, getting a pit puppy is a silly gamble to take. There are better suited breeds.
I mean, plenty of breeds are predisposed to undesirable behaviors... some that can be avoided with adequate training and exercise (e.g., physical rudeness in labs, to some extent digging with huskies, fear aggression in Chihuahuas, intolerance of strangers in Briards), and some that might crop up despite someone's best efforts to prevent them (e.g., separation anxiety in beagles or weims, submissive urination in cockers, sound reactivity in shelties). But the majority of casual breed aficionados I meet seem to accept these faults and know they could be an issue.
Even the Akita and ACD fans I know are open about the breed's tendencies toward dog aggression. Yet virtually every time I see a post about pits here or elsewhere, you get the "it's all in how you raise/train/socialize them" people coming out of the woodwork. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I literally cannot remember a single time when I have seen the same defense about aggression in a Chow/Akita/ACD/etc.
What on earth is it about dog-dog aggression in APBTs that seems to make some people so resistant to admitting it's "a thing"?
They claim that aggression can be avoided by socialization or training.
But the fact is, pits ARE much more likely than labs or beagles or many other common breeds to show dog aggression. And in many cases, true dog-dog aggression isn't something you can train or socialize away.
Different types of aggression in dogs--dog directed vs human directed, reactivity vs true aggression--are mediated by different mechanisms, so I'm not saying pits are inherently dangerous to humans. Hell, most pits are even good with other dogs... but a greater percentage than many other popular breeds are dog aggressive, and their relative muzzle width and terrier tenacity makes them capable of considerable damage.
I'm not just talking about anecdotal evidence. I'm a scientist, so
here's some scientific evidence (Applied Animal Behavior Science, 2008)-
"More than 20% of Akitas, Jack Russell Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers were reported as displaying serious aggression toward unfamiliar dogs. Golden Retrievers, Labradors Retrievers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Greyhounds and Whippets were the least aggressive toward both humans and dogs"
"Although some breeds appeared to be aggressive in most contexts (e.g., Dachshunds,Chihuahuas and Jack Russell Terriers), others were more specific. Aggression in Akitas, Siberian Huskies, and Pit Bull Terriers, for instance, was primarily directed toward unfamiliar dogs. These findings suggest that aggression in dogs may be relatively target specific[...]"
In addition to the scientific evidence above, more involved pit people seem to agree that this is an innate issue to many pits- source 1, source 2, source 3.
The worst deniers often seems to be Joe Schmos with a friendly pit at home. Do these dog-aggression-deniers not realize they're harming the reputation of the breed more by not being honest with themselves and others? I feel potential dog aggression is really a trait people should be aware of when they get a breed predisposed to it. If dog aggression is an absolute dealbreaker for someone, getting a pit puppy is a silly gamble to take. There are better suited breeds.
I mean, plenty of breeds are predisposed to undesirable behaviors... some that can be avoided with adequate training and exercise (e.g., physical rudeness in labs, to some extent digging with huskies, fear aggression in Chihuahuas, intolerance of strangers in Briards), and some that might crop up despite someone's best efforts to prevent them (e.g., separation anxiety in beagles or weims, submissive urination in cockers, sound reactivity in shelties). But the majority of casual breed aficionados I meet seem to accept these faults and know they could be an issue.
Even the Akita and ACD fans I know are open about the breed's tendencies toward dog aggression. Yet virtually every time I see a post about pits here or elsewhere, you get the "it's all in how you raise/train/socialize them" people coming out of the woodwork. Maybe it's confirmation bias, but I literally cannot remember a single time when I have seen the same defense about aggression in a Chow/Akita/ACD/etc.
What on earth is it about dog-dog aggression in APBTs that seems to make some people so resistant to admitting it's "a thing"?