Why is it so hard for some pit lovers to be honest about the breed's predisposition for dog-dog aggression?

[jozymba]

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)-

"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"?

 

[pyt2k]

@jozymba From what I've seen, the average person is ignorant about dog aggression in general. Loads of people ignore their dog's discomfort with other dogs, and when something does happen they treat it as a freak event. Even if the dog is extremely reactive and often gets in small fights, because it's never injured another dog they just brush it off. They talk about how well socialized their dog is because they're always at the dog park, and don't take their dog's discomfort seriously.

 

[nifa]

@jozymba If I had to guess, the popularity of the breed might have a factor into the debates about dog-dog aggression.

The breed is far more common than chows, akitas, ACD. It takes research to find a chow breeder or an ACD breeder. A pit is easily a huge percent of shelter breeds. Look on Craigslist in major cities in the U.S. and you'll see so many posts from BYBs trying to sell $300 pittie pups.

Every owner of a chow/akita/ACD that I have met, have experience with these breeds and will openly talk about their faults because a good breeder will be open about them and be very selective to who gets a pup. Or they went through a selective breed specific rescue that grills potential owners about experience. These people know their dog breed and could talk your ear off.

Pits on the other hand are practically given away in the area I live. I could go pick up a pit right now for maybe even under $100 if I chose to. Shelters are getting misleading about their pit mix dogs in order to save the dog. And it does not help the breed. Especially when you get people posting "nannydog" myths on Facebook and now suddenly it becomes a fact. Lot of unreliable sources on pit behavior touted as scientific fact.

I know some fabulous pitties, but they have a history of dog-dog aggression with specific dogs, not all dogs, but certainly some dogs. I knew two pit sisters that tried to kill eachother, so they were put seperately into different households with dogs they get along with. Even then there were some minor scuffles.

EDIT: I will also say that there are great pit owners out there that don't deny these things. We just hear the vocal owners the most. So responsible pit owners, keep on pittin'.

 

[naily25]

@nifa

The breed is far more common than chows, akitas, ACD.

Here's why....

Lot of unreliable sources on pit behavior touted as scientific fact.

This goes both ways.... both damning and praising the breed.

 

[susanitaq8]

@nifa Man I thought the nannydog thing was real too. Oops.

 

[asyaphari]

@susanitaq8 It is-- but NOT for all breeds that get called "pitbull" it is NOT true for the APBT, or the AmStaff, it IS true for the staffordshire bull terrier. The problem is most people don't bother to learn the differences and because all 3 get called pitbull, they believe the same characteristics are applicable to all 3.

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@asyaphari No seriously. If you're going to say this, you probably need to back it up.

 

[asyaphari]

@imagebeastmarkbeast Man calm down, I don't live at my computer and it's a holiday weekend.

I'm trying to hit the AKC site to pull up breed histories for each, but since they've launched the redesign it's exceptionally unreliable. The UK Kennel Club site is surprisingly disappointing for it's lack of breed histories/heritage.

(Keep in mind I own a staffy) But for the books:

"Staffordshire Bulle Terrier: A comprehensive guide to owning and caring for your dog." (kindle App says about 11% through)

"Guide to Owning a Staffordshire Bull Terrier: Puppy Care, Grooming, ..." I no longer own this book, but I remember reading about it in here as well.

Will say that although the first called out that SBT's are good with children and being rough handled they do remind readers that kids and dogs should not be left unattended (as responsible dog advocate/authors should), I think the authors of the second did as well. So despite nickname, still advocating responsible dog ownership.

Lastly, this is anecdotal obviously, but we got our girl from a pair of AKC-cert breeders, who have lived in my area and been breeding Staffy's since the 1970s. During my interactions with them I was corrected many times that Staffy's, though frequently labeled pitbulls, are not pitbulls. And many characteristics of the staffy have been "appropriated" by Am Staff and APBT advocates as the pitbulls has become vilified by media and pop culture. I do not see why they would lie about that. Along with their house full of Staffy's, they had 2 APBT dogs as well. I bring this up because it speaks to the cultural shift they have witnessed within the dog show, and dog breeding community within the U.S.

Someone else pointed out that the breeds are very similar and I 100% agree with that. But my original point was that the label nanny dog is not some bullshit and advocate group made up in the 2000s, but a folksy nickname the SBT breed (specifically) was given in early-mid 1900s in the UK. One that has been adopted by AmStaff and APBT owners, though it was not initially meant to describe these breeds.

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@asyaphari Thanks for the extra info. Still, what you say in this paragraph and what is implied by "the nanny dog thing is true but only for SBTs" is pretty different don't you think?

 

[asyaphari]

@imagebeastmarkbeast No?

Or maybe I don't know what's passed around Facebook. But when I wrote "nanny dog thing" I meant the nick name. It seems like many people think that the dogs actually getting called nanny dogs isn't real, and that is what I was referring to. It was a real nick name for SBTs, and one adopted by AST and ABPT owners/advocates... not "earned" (wrong word here but it's late.)

Does that make sense?

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@asyaphari The implication of the nanny dog name is that they were so good around kids that they were used as nannies entrusted to watch over small children regularly (which depending on your version of the urban tale you read could be for hours/days at time, as the infant/child's sole caretaker) . As far as I'm aware, there isn't any actual evidence of that. To be entirely candid your "I think I read it in a book once" isn't super compelling either, even just for the nickname. I'm not trying to be a dick, so sorry if it's coming across that way.

 

[sk83n]

@imagebeastmarkbeast regardless of how gentle a dog is with children, entrusting child care to the dog is a laughably ridiculous image.

 

[divewithchuck]

@nifa Unpopular opinion time.

If I had to guess, the popularity of the breed might have a factor into the debates about dog-dog aggression.

"popularity" is an interesting word choice.

I wouldn't say that that pits are as much "popular" as they are spectacularly poorly bred... which is to say that there are painfully few examples of responsible breeding of this breed, MUCH to the detrement of the breed.

Shelters and rescues are inundated with pits and pit mixes... why do you think this is?

 

[crossmyheart]

@divewithchuck Shelters and rescues are inundated with pits because of the success of spay/neuter campaigns. The average person knows to s/n at six months. Look at most middle class and above, those dogs are altered. Go into the "hood" and you will have a hard time finding altered dogs. What is the most common breed there? Pits. What's the most over bred breed? Pits, though labs might be a close second.

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@crossmyheart And these "pits" in the hood have no papers, no proof of bloodline. You have no idea if they're a mixed breed or a pure APBT, and I'm sure the truth is all over the map when it comes to backyard breeders. Pit bull mixes often get lumped in as pit bulls when it comes to the media covering a dog bite, but there are numerous breeds who fail temperament testing more than pit bulls do. Boxers are slightly more aggressive on average than pit bulls, so when a pit bull/boxer mix attacks someone, which half gets the blame?

 

[mercyhwetin88]

@crossmyheart how is this because of 'the success of spay/neuter campaigns'? surely a campaign is more successful when more people become aware of the necessity of spay/neuter - especially low income communities that have so much ignorance about the problem.

 

[crossmyheart]

@mercyhwetin88 Because people with labs, beagles, retrievers, and other common dog breeds spay and neuter. The success has been with middle class and above.

People in low income areas don't want/care to s/n because most of the reasons don't appeal to them. For instance, decreased aggression, they got their dogs to guard. Decreased chance of cancers, most dogs don't stay in the same home that long. No unwanted puppies, they want to have puppies to sell them. Etc.

So this brings us back to pits being the most common breed in low income areas. Therefore they continue to be (badly) bred while the other common breeds aren't.

Does that make sense?

 

[mercyhwetin88]

@crossmyheart I comprehend what you're saying but I don't think it proves your point. Sorry.
You're saying that S/N campaigns focused too much on middle class communities in their messaging so they did not outreach enough to low-income communities? Or that, after hearing the reasons for S/N, Pit bull BYB's decided to do it anyway? I don't think that means S/N was too successful.

 

[crossmyheart]

@mercyhwetin88 It isn't that s/n campaigns focused on the middle class and above but rather the reasons appeal more to them. The s/n campaigns have been successful considering 83% of pet dogs are s/n and the amount of dogs euthanized every year has dropped. (Link at the end)

I do work with an outreach program that offers free s/n for low income areas. Free for pits $50 for non-pits. Even at free we have a lot of people who still don't want to for reasons I've already listed.

I would welcome you to share your opinion as to why pit Bulls so out number other breeds in shelters.

http://m.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html

 

[julianchu]

@jozymba I think it's because many people arguing against pit bulls will use that as a gateway, or automatic surrender of the argument. I'm a pibble lover and while I know this to be fact, I'll admit I sometimes have a hard time admitting it in discussions with particularly zealous people because as soon as I do so, the person I'm talking to will say something like "see, even you agree with me! Since clearly everyone knows this to be fact and it is soooo awful, the obvious solution is to ban pit bulls, or stop supporting pit bulls, etc etc etc".

So I think a lot of APBT lovers just kinda sweep it under the rug because they don't like to think about it, or because since their pit bull is well behaved, that MUST mean it's not true.