Talk:Pit bull/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Article flagged - could use a photo of a pit bull in attack mode

Before we get into discussing this article there is some background information that everyone needs to understand. First,statistically, pit bulls are less agressive (naturally) than, beagles, german shepards and other breeds. Secondly, the dogs only want to please their owners, that is why if you watch the [disgusting] videos of dog fighting you will see 90% of the dogs are wagging their tails because they hear their owner(s) encouraging them to fight. A perfect example is the Michael Vick case, his dogs were taken and put into kennels, as per a federal jury they were not killed because of the [high] profile of the case. Out of the 66 dogs there were taken 8 were put down; which means that is only 12%. Out of the other 58 dogs they have all been adopted to families along with being trained for hospice and hospitals to help raise self esteems on patients. The best saying to sum up the Pit Bull breed is too "Blame the Deed NOT the Breed" which means dont classify ALL pitbulls as fighting agressvie dogs, just the one's that are beaten and treated like crap by the owners and bred for fighting. Pit bulls are NOT agressive by nature. If you look at american history we used to LOVE Pit Bulls, I mean there was Petey (little rascals) and betty boop had a pitbull. Plus many other famous actors/actresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heybroek (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The article discusses at length the dangerous nature of pit bulls, but lacks a picture of a pit bull attacking or behaving aggressively. The photo of a muzzled pit bull is a start, but is insufficient. I realize it may not be easy to obtain a such a photo in the public domain or by permission, but I'm adding a request in any case. 5Q5 (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article need that? Any dog breed can attack. There's nothing special about the way that a bully breed attacks. The muzzle image is fine; it illustrates that fact that some bully breed individuals do have aggression tendencies which need to be addressed if the dog is in public. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A photo of an agressive dog would be better suited for a dog fighting article. To place a photo of an aggressive dog in an article describing a breed would be similar to using a photo of a soldier shooting an enemy during war on the Human article... Or a Jew in a concentration camp, or I suppose a photo of a mugging would compare to animal aggression, but those wouldn't be true to Human character would they? Dwightlathan77 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a photo of a muzzled dog more relevant to a discussion of dog muzzling laws? Some places, such as some public parks, require all dogs to be muzzled while attending, regardless of breed, so a photo of a muzzled dog can have different interpretations. As I wrote in my first post, for an article that discusses pit bull attacks, an illustration of such would not be improper to accompany the text. Wikipedia:Images: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." Here are a couple of news media stories that felt it appropriate to use such images: http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0108/485244.html and http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/02/mandatory-confi.html. Perhaps a pit bull owner out there would be proud to have such an image of their guard dog in attack mode displayed in the article or perhaps a kennel owner or victim of an attack was able to snap a photo that they would donate and upload to Wikipedia Commons. I remember there used to be a photo of a "smiling pit bull" in the article (see archive Nov 1, 2007). We could return that in the positive press section at the same time to maintain balance. 5Q5 (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A single screenshot image could also be obtained from a television news report about pit bulls and included under fair use. Research: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Non-free_content and Template:Non-free_television_screenshot and Category:Screenshots_of_television. A good project for someone! 5Q5 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't oblige. My pitbull doesn't pose viciously or threateningly. On our walk today, a two-yr old ran after him, begging to pet him. We stopped, he sat and obliged, and there were smiles all around. Never had a dog who so completely knew his place. I've taken my elderly mother to the hospital when her dachshund tore 2 inches of flesh off her hand. My pit bull has never laid teeth on anyone in anger. Go figure... Why don't you solicit a mad dog pic from the dachshund wikipedia page?69.129.124.251 (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I added an image to the article of "Petey" from "The Little Rascals." Will it survive editorial review? We'll see, I guess. The article has a media section with positive press and negative press subsections. If anyone can find separate news videos online of a positive PB story and negative PB story containing potentially useful images that we can get as screenshots (I could do it), post the links here so that they can be checked out. The two opposing screenshots would provide balance and are relevant to the media coverage discussion. 5Q5 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The "dangerous nature" of pitbulls is not empirical. An encyclopedia would be mistaken to publish anything that obviously reinforces something not grounded in fact. We know the effect the media's portrayal if pitbulls has had on the public's perception of them. A photo of a snarling pitbull would have similar effect. The amount of content devoted to public perception of pitbulls and unfactual information in this article should be decreased, as the encyclopedia isn't a public survey of opinion. Insect stings and mothers kill more people each year than dogs. I'd like to see snarling pictures of these two culprits on their respected pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.155.28 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. Putting up images of pit bulls in threatening poses would do nothing but play to the common misconceptions about them, rather than offer a neutral observation about the controversy. It would be irresponsible to put a picture like that on here, unless you want one of those on every single dog-related page; after all, any breed of dog can be dangerous. Furthermore, regarding the image of the dog attacking an Animal Control officer, I've seen that video clip, and the dog was ordered by its owner to attack the woman. The caption needs to reflect the fact that the dog was not acting on its own, but was, in fact, told to attack her by its owner, and was just "following orders." Evil bacteria (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The pit bull article indicates that they were historically bred to be killers, unlike human mothers, and the article on the mosquito, an insect, does have a photo of one biting a human. The many national and local governments that enacted laws regarding pit bulls must have reviewed evidence that convinced them to decide in favor of the laws they passed, I assume. The articles attack dog, guard dog, dog attack, and dog fighting all use a photo of a dog or dogs in a violent attacking mode to accompany the discussion of the article. The pit bull article, as represented by the many laws passed, discusses in several places the violent nature of the dogs and a single photo illustrating that would not be inappropriate, in my view. I am not trying to gang up on one side of the issue. What I would like to see is a small screen shot from a positive TV news story on pit bulls and a screenshot of a negative story and put them in the media coverage section. If no suitable positive image can be found, then I will withdraw my request. I haven't done any viewing of TV reports yet. 5Q5 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact governments passing laws banning pit bulls have not acted based on a review of evidence. They generally act out of prejudice and contrary to the evidence presented to them. That was certainly the case in Ontario where every single professional organization, including the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association and the Canadian Kennel Club, dog trainers and breeders, etc. opposed the legislation in hearings prior to its being passed by the government. The Attorney General at the time repeatedly spouted off urban legends about pit bulls in defence of the legislation. Bryandale (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the American Veterinary Medical Association's recommendations related to breed specific legislation. They discourage it due to the fact that the "violent nature" of the pitbull type dog isn't emprical(and explain why). Although temperament tests aren't hard science by any means, American Pitbulls score better than Golden Retrievers. The fact that human mothers kill more of their babies than the pitbull types that were bred to fight stands supports the same point. Obviously their history hasn't had the impact drug dealers and the general public assume. Genetics don't translate into behaviors in an absolute way. Further, genes don't necessarily predispose pitbull type dogs to be violent or fight, rather they generally predispose them to be good at it. A picture of a snarling pitbull reinforces their image in manner that is false. And yes, it is empirical that people are that impressionable, and they selectively attend to negative information. If they are to come away with a clear view of the breed, the photo should be excluded. Last, laws, unfortunately, are often not based on facts. Just remember slavery if this seems like an outlandish claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.155.28 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a picture of a snarling pit bull as long as the snarl wasn't Photoshopped on him. Large cats are frequently shown snarling. If it is in the article that people are afraid of pit bulls, legislating against them, etc. then I think that a picture showing one being threatening could be appropriate. A picture like that doesn't mean that every pit bull is like that. Anyhow, I understand that there are strong feelings involved with this, and I also don't think that the article suffers for not having such a picture at the moment, but just wanted to throw in my opinion. thanks Bob98133 (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've got an ABC news screenshot of a pit bull that adopted some orphaned kittens and a CBS News screenshot of a loose pit bull attacking an African-American animal control officer, the latter is from a news clip that has received a lot of play over the years in the news. I'll need some time to upload them properly and write captions. If all goes well, will post them in the article next week, in the "Media coverage" section. 5Q5 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Two screenshots posted. The first is from a 2006 brief filler story on ABC's Good Morning America in the U.S. The second with the attack image is from a longer 2005 report on CBS's The Early Show in the U.S. that covered both sides of the issue. It appears just after two minutes into the report. I removed my "Missing information" flag from the top of the article. I set the image size at a small-to-medium 175 pixels, but that was just my preference; others may want them larger if there is consensus. 5Q5 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this picture: Porcupit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.137.250.81 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Snopes article you cite specifcally says the dog pictured is a bull terrier. That's a different kind of dog, not a pit bull. Sailboatd2 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the CBS News screenshot for deletion, as I do not believe it satisfies the non-free content criteria. The same thing probably applies to the ABC news screenshot, but I feel bad asking for all you images to be deleted :)

As far as the value of showing a pit bull in attack mode, I would oppose it unless it was a very good image that illustrated something about the dogs' behavior that was also mentioned and cited in the article, e.g. illustrating the body posture used by a pit in attack mode. A blurry photograph showing that one time a pit bull attacked somebody is beyond worthless.

I must say, I'm really baffled by the negative opinions of pit bulls. One day I was walking our pit bull mix puppy (dunno her exact heritage, but based on appearance I am guessing 3/4 pit) and this woman said, "Oh what a cute dog," and asked me what breed it was. When I said "pit-lab mix", she recoiled. It took me a few seconds to even understand why. heh... Of our three dogs, she's actually the one I am least worried about being aggressive towards people. Our lab mix is a little high-strung, and our collie mix is a sweetie but just a bit dim. The pit mix is friendly, obedient, and calm.

IMO, pit bulls make good fighting and attack dogs mostly because they are so ridiculously trainable. They are very fast learners, and will do what they are trained to do even through pain and serious injury. Granted, they are naturally a little bit dog-aggressive (although since they are so trainable it only takes a little effort to keep this in check). To make them human-aggressive, you need to specifically train them to do so.

A good illustration of why pit bulls are used as attack dogs would be to show a pit bull doing a variety of obedience tricks :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is felt that an image of a "pitbull in attack mode" should be shown, then why not a picture of a "friendly mode" pitbull. If there's supposed to be a balanced outlook here, then both sides of the coin need to be adopted and not the overview shared by the generally poor media representation.

Last year an alleged "pitbull attack" made national news and took place near where I live in the Granada Province of Southern Spain. Much was made of this news item in the media and the "dangerous dogs" debate raged on again. To this day, images and footage are still shown of the police capturing and removing the dogs from the location of the "attack", whenever dangerous dogs are mentioned in the media.

I am in regular contact with the animal protection centre to which the three dogs which it was reported had attacked and killed an elderly man, had been taken, seeing them myself upon one visit. Following investigations by the local police, it was actually found that the elderly man had died of natural causes. He had died in his sleep and living in a rural location, was alone with his three dogs. What had actually happened was that the dogs eventually became hungry, without any other source of food, and had begun to eat the flesh of the unfortunate deceased gentleman. No evidence of any attack being the cause of death could be found. One of the dogs was elderly and emaciated, another had no teeth, only the third could have been considered in a reasonably healthy condition.

My point here is that unsurprisingly enough, no further reports of the true cause of this alleged attack victims death was reported anywhere in the media, locally or nationally. This highlights the sensationalist view of the general media and not a view that we should expect of Wikipedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia therefore is to represent factual evidence and information from all angles and hopefully without bias.

My view therefore is that if we have a "negative" we should also have the "positive", if we can't have both, we should have neither one or the other alone. - 88.28.95.176 (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Heath Chesters. Granada. Spain

I have owned only Pit Bulls throughout my 33 years on earth and I speak from experience, any dog can become violent if the owner chooses it to be. Owners are more of the issue not the breed, you figure all you brainy types would at least agree on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.54.242 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Famous pit bull owners

This section is pretty useless. I see that some other dog articles also have similar sections, but not all. I suggest that this section, and the other famous dog/famous owner sections, be moved to a new page of Famous Dogs or Famous Dog Owners. A link to that category could then replace these sections on individual pages. Bob98133 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of "Legal challenges to legalization"

The last paragraph in the section "Legal challenges to legalization..." is messy. Is the text primarily a quote that wasn't tagged? It reads like opinion to me. Anyone with more background in Pit Bulls have any thoughts? -CaptainJae (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad you noticed this. In fact, this entire section was posted to Wiki on 8/10/08, I think by Caseyjamesnow, but was originally posted on this web page - http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/06/pit_bull_owners_in_lakewood_ch.html - as a comment on 6/16/08. The content is plagiarized so has been removed. Bob98133 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: it was pretty silly to plagiarize this, since the original source cited has the same info. Bob98133 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with the last paragraph regarding the Vanater v. Village of S. Point case. Is that entire paragraph quoted from the case? It reads as if those are "facts" being stated, when I think it should be rephrased to make it clear those were the findings IN THAT CASE. Some of the stuff in there such as this: "The breeding history of Pit Bulls makes it impossible to rule out a violent propensity for any one dog as gameness and aggressiveness can be hidden for years. Given the Pit Bull's genetical physical strengths and abilities, a Pit Bull always poses the possibility of danger; given the Pit Bull's breeding history as a fighting dog and the latency of its aggressiveness and gameness, the Pit Bull poses a danger distinct from other breeds of dogs which do not so uniformly share those traits. While Pit Bulls are not the only breed of dog which can be dangerous or vicious, it is reasonable to single out the breed to anticipate and avoid the dangerous aggressiveness which may be undetectable in a Pit Bull." Anyone with a basic background in genetics in general, or dog breeding knows that this is patently false. A dog fighter would be lucky to get one pup in a litter from a Grand Champ that was "game enouh." And even then, those dogs require some serious training to become fighters. Ignorant people who think it's in the dog's nature don't understand that dogs aren't just thrown into a pit and automatically fight. They are trained, just as any other dog has to be trained to perform tasks (not to make light of fighting). That would be like saying "All Golden Retrivers are born knowing how to answer telephones, open doors, and be seeing eye dogs or other assistance dogs." That's just silly. Those dogs go through a year or more of training. As a pop culture example - look at the Michael Vick dogs - they were "bred" to be vicous, and many were killed b/c they weren't "game enough." Only one of the dogs seized showed serious agression issues, even after the type of life they had all led.

The other issue I take is that it keeps emphasizing how "unpredictable" pit bulls are. The emphasis on the fighting history and then the discussion of unpredictability is completely contradictory. If anything, pit bulls, even those bred for fighting, are bred to be PREDICTABLE. You can't have a fighting dog turning on its handler or on the spectators during a fight. They must be extremely responsive to commands and have an inhibition towards biting a human so that they can be handled during a fight. Something else that is overlooked is that pit bulls have a desire to please their masters unlike any dogs I've ever worked with. This trait is exploited when their master commands them to fight to the death. That's their motivation. That's why the majority of pit bulls are able to live happy, stable lives as family pets. It could also explain why pit bulls left out of chains, separated from their "pack," and given no interaction can sometimes go crazy. Then again, I've seen pit bulls come into the shelter where I work that have led deplorable lives for many years and they end up having no issues at all. They're individuals, just like we are, and their behavior is a complex mix of genetics, training, environment, and socialization. CSCook (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The section to which CSCook referred has now been put in the context of the legal opinion of the court. I'm slowly working through the "legal challenges" section as well as the breed ban section. Astro$01 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As Pets

In the web site in the 8th reference, I don't see the justification for saying: Under the care of an overly-permissive or uneducated owner, Pit Bulls can become very dangerous dogs.[8] And anyway, I think that this would be true of any breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.230.2 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any large breed, maybe. I can't really imagine a chihuahua mauling somebody. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the section in the article about irresponsible owners using pit bulls to further their nefarious ends is right on target. True, the dog is big and powerful. But I witnessed a pit bull attack where one pit bull female dog attacked another female; and a few things were clear prior to the attack. These dogs were being bred in the back of an apartment building in Los Angeles. The owner did not socialize these dogs with other dogs,he was hardly ever with the dogs himself except to occasionally feed them, he never pet them and I did not know where he was getting the dogs in the first place (the pound, a breeder, who knew). The dogs were never walked and were allowed to live in their own filth for days on end. We as neighbors got to smell the drying poop especially during the ripe summer months. One day I saw one of the female dogs behaving aggressivley towards the owner's child as the kid tried to walk across the backyard. His father shouted at the boy to "not be afraid". Helpful instructions, as the dog's muzzle came up to the kid's chest and he was practically eye-to-eye with the dog. Later that day, this same female dog that had not been bred attacked another that had. The first dog held onto the other dog's chest and neck. The attacking dog did not let go even after the owner repeatedly kicked the attacking dog. The dog being attacked started bleeding profusely. It was quite a visual lesson in the methods by which pit bulls are known to fight....it was ghastly to see. Having seen what I saw, I can understand full well why people want the dogs banned and I carry no brief for the dog, never having owned any dog myself. However, these particular dogs were treated poorly to say the least prior to this attack. And the owner treated the residents next to his dogs (all of us living in the next building), poorly too. He was clearly into the "tough dog" look, none of his dogs were fixed and he got what he wanted....a mean, aggressive dog that churned out other bad dogs. It was the owner who I blamed for all this because of all the warning signs that occurred before the attack, the lousy way he cared for his dogs and the contempt he had for his neighbors. I believe that a domestic animal that's not neglected, that's fixed, that's fed properly, that's socialized with humans and dogs alike, won't act like this. If the animal is treated as I saw these dogs treated it will undoubtedly enhance their tendency to fight. And fight they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.96.101 (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pit bull Images listed for deletion

Since the person who did it never bothered to post any notices here, please note that this image and this image have been nominated for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to add their vote and reason why to

• pit bull adopting kittens - image nomination for deletion discussion
• pit bull attacks animal control officer - image nominated for deletion discussion

while there is time. It must be noted that the editor who nominated the attack photo for deletion is a pit bull mix owner. See Article flagged section above for the editor's comments. 5Q5 (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They both look lie uncontroversial deletes to me under WIkipedia's copyright policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have substantially added and revised the accompanying text and captions regarding both images. Deletion is not warranted in my opinion. 5Q5 (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Five days after being nominated for deletion, the two images were deleted by an admin on September 2, 2008. Accordingly, I will not waste time in the future adding additional images to this article. 5Q5 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are free images, go right ahead and add them. You seem to think that because I own a pit bull mix, somehow that makes me unable to parse the text at WP:NFCC?!? My relationship to a pit bull is only relevant in that it is what brought me to this page. The image in question did not anger or offend me. I just merely saw that it miserably failed the non-free content criteria. It adds does not add significantly to the reader's understanding of either pit bulls or the media's portrayal of pit bulls, and it is copyrighted. End of story.

If you have a free image of a pit bull in attack mode, be my guest and add it to the article. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And actually, Ed, I did notify the uploader of the image, as well as mentioning it on the talk page (see the first section above). I'm not the enemy here. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about Staffordshire Bull Terrier image

Why is there a picture of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier in the Pit Bull article? It's confusing. Why not delete this or add pictures of any other dogs that might resemble Pit Bulls? Bob98133 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Staffordshire Bull Terriers do not only "resemble" Pit Bulls - they are Pit Bulls under the most popular definitions of the term, including some of the legislation cited elsewhere in the article. As such, it is appropriate for the article to depict them alongside American Pit Bull Terriers and the few other breeds included in the definition. 216.75.188.95 (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This pit bull apologist article is hogwash and needs to be re-written!

Ask any county animal control service which breed tops the list of reported dog bites. I dare you. Pit Bulls are always at the top of the list...even more than the larger population of labs or mixed breeds! It is unethical for Pit Bull owners to defend aggressive, violent dogs in this supposedly objective article by describing them as the perfect pets, and quibbling with the dog bite statistics by questioning "the consistency of the figures" or the exclusion of some other variables...or..get this one...pointing at small or toy breeds as being more aggressive than pit bulls! As if I need to protect my child's life from the crushing jaws of a Chihuahua! Toy breeds don't pose a public health risk. Pit bulls do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by72.28.151.7 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i'm not a "dog person" at all, even though i am the proud new parent of a purebred border collie puppy - never had a pup in my life before but i've had up to 50 cats (when i lived on the farm). i used to run a pet rescue with a friend of mine and of all the dogs we managed, it was my friend's pomeranian that sent me to the hospital to be treated for 8 bites on my feet, shins, stomach, hands, arms, and face that had perforated the skin - numerous others were "only" scratches. two nurses scrubbed each bleeding bite with a nailbrush and iodine solution and bandaged me up, painted the scrapes and scratches with polysporin, gave me a prescription for cream and pill antibiotics, and sent me home.

her rottweiler nipped her baby - it was not an attack (or the 8mo old would've had no arm) but a purely preventable incident when the babysitter left the baby alone with the dog, known to be food possessive, while he was eating. at the hospital, my friend had to deal with the police, animal control, public health, and children's aid. she had to fill out all kinds of forms, sign affadavits, agree to an evaluation of suitability of her home for children, and they took down all the information about her dog including his breed. the baby had *one* puncture wound on her hand.

i can tell you one thing: i believe 100% that if our positions were reversed, that i'd been bit by the rottie and she'd been gotten by the pomeranian, that baby would be dead.

99.235.134.243 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The true 'Pit Bulls' are the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier since they were bred from the same Staffordshire Bull Terrier stock. Veterinarians, and trainers swear by these animals' good natured temperment. Even so, 'Pit Bulls' are always at the top of the list for severe bites. To me the reason is obvious. The news sensationalizes Pit Bull attacks. All the statistics, even those from the CDC and the most comprehensive studies, are based on news reports. Often the 'Pit Bull' bite statistics are inflated for 2 reasons. First, identifying a true Pit Bull from other breeds is difficult. Second, because there are 18 breeds commonly referred to as 'Pit Bulls'. All these breeds together make the generic 'pit bull' category used in these statistics to be the 5th most common dog in the United States. The term 'Pit Bull' can refer to more than half the breeds capable of killing and maiming large children. For these reasons the Center for Disease Control stated that breed has no relevance as to dog bite prevention and the federal court has ruled that breed statistics cannot be used to euthanize dogs. The difficulty in identifying Pit Bulls is demonstrated at the following link: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html. The only relevant statistics on Pit Bulls I know of are the American Temperament Test Society's testing results. These statistics indicate that the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers tested have less inborn and learned aggression and demonstrate less unwanted mental and physical traits than most dog breeds. According to these statistics The 3 true Pit Bull's, as a breed, are at least 20% ( for the AmStaff ) to 26% ( for the Staffie ) less likely to do people or animals harm than Chihuahuas. This is saying something about their low human aggression since many individuals from these 3 breeds are animal aggressive and the test has a pass/fail grade. Any unwanted behavior fails the test, which includes placing the dogs with threatening and aggressive people and dogs, unexpected stimuli, and near gun fire. To be fair people need to recognize that Pit Bulls were bred specifically to be human friendly while fighting and wounded and the statistics on their temperment tests validate that their breeding was successfull. Dwightlathan77 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"pit bull apologist article"? There is nothing inherently wrong with pit bulls or any other breed of dog, the problem is with irresponsible or unethical owners such as those involved in dogfighting who unfortunately often use pit bulls due to their strength and stamina. Labeling an entire breed of dog as dangerous is ignorant. AuthorNeubius (AuthorNeubius) 6 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.133.255 (talk)

Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or education. The intent of wiki is to supply referenced and verifiable information. If you have verifiable information to add to this article, please do so, with references. Your personal opinion or comments, while possibly correct, are not really of much interest or use. Bob98133 (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to ask anyone about reported dog bites when these statistics have already been gathered. As I recall, Dachshunds are the dog breed most likely to bite. I do believe that this wiki article also states that bites from larger dogs, such as Pit Bulls, are likely to be more damaging and more frequently reported since they often involve injuries or death. You might be better advised to protect your child from sloppy pseudo-knowledge and prejudices than from either Pit Bulls or Chihuahuas. If you have referenced material to add to this article, please do so, but opinions and original research won't do. Bob98133 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think there's an instance of an NPOV defense of pit bulls in the article. In the section "Legal issues in the United States", the article cites a CDC study which found the "Pit Bull type dogs" caused the most human deaths based on newspaper reports. In an effort to refute the study, the article states, "With breed identification at best being nearly impossible, the lack of reliability of breed identification provided by newspaper reports, poses a confounding variable for the significance and validity of such a report." The first clause should be changed or removed because it is non-neutral, uncited hyperbole. It is ridiculous on its face. "Impossible" means something that cannot happen. To claim "breed identification being nearly impossible" means that either the breed of a dog have never been accurately identified in a newspaper at all or only accurately identified a handful of times in the history of newspaper. Many people accurately identify dog breeds. As the article Dog breedstates "Dogs of same breed have similar characteristics of appearance and behavior." It's not an inscrutable mystery. The concept of a dog breed is an identity. Further, the CDC study refers to "Pit Bull type dogs." Like this article, it refers to a collection of breeds rather than a specific breed, making the task easier. Most importantly, there is no citation to support the claim that identifying dogs is nearly impossible at best. I think the sentence should either be removed for lack of support or change it to something like "A newspaper account may not necessarily correctly identify the breed or type of dog." --JamesAM (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and I think you nailed the real essence of the argument; the media often misreports dog breeds, especially when it comes to pit bulls. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to replace that sentence with references to identification problems discussed in the CDC study article itself. But of course it can be further tweaked as necessary - especially if folks find citations regarding rates of misidentification. --JamesAM (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone aware that there is no such animal as a pit bull, but there are many breeds that are refered to as "pit bulls". The most comon being the pit bull terrier and the american staffordshire terrier. Even with very sad cases such as the Michael Vick dog fighting ring, that produced many vicious dogs. Only two of the fifty plus animals siezed were put down, and only two of the remaining dog were not rehabilatated fully. Some serving as therapy dogs for the elderly. What the public needs is more education on what it means to be a responsible dog owner wether it be a Bichon, or a Bull Mastiff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by71.252.6.188 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty amusing that "pit bulls" carry a top spot on some statistical counts in terms of harmful dog bites... when it's an umbrella term forthree different breeds. If you group, let's say... Labradors, Golden Retrievers, and Irish Setters under one umbrella term... we'd probably have a new statistical "winner". Three of anything will easily beat a bunch of ones. So, any statistics using the umbrella-term "pit bull" as a breed is biased and therefor not a suitable source of information (Except in the case of simply talking about the breeds, such as mentioning the generalizations made about them all collectively. Just saying in statistics, they need to be separated).--Zacloud (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Where I live, a lot of breed bans have been enacted and/or challenged. I have been involved in three court cases where we used DNA evidence (only recently available) to "prove" that the dogs in question were NOT pit bulls. Even though I as a dog rescuer of many years would have identified all of those dogs as being "pit bulls" or pit bull mixes, their DNA evidence unquesionably refuted it. None of them were even 1/12th pit bull (Am Staff, Staffie, etc.) Therein lies the inherent problem of the "breed" issue. I think the point the quote from the CDC article about it being "impossible" to ID dog breeds is pointing to the fact that in most cases verifying whether the beed ID in the newspaper article is accurate is almost impossible. I have an entire file full of newspaper articles where the headline reads "pit bull attack" or some variation thereof, but when you actually read the article, it's not a pit bull, or a pit bull was in the area but another type of dog attacked the person, etc. Also, I have another file of LOCAL newspaper articles reporting dog attacks by other breeds that never get picked up by the AP and put on national news like the pit bull attacks do. This website does a pretty good job of catching and posting most of these. http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm And most of these are pretty horrific attacks you never hear about. (I was going to write a law review article on the media bias, which is why I have so much research info, that I'm working to add here.) That's why statistics based upon newspaper reports are flawed.

Also,regarding county animal control and the "top biters." I have the dog bite statistics for every municipality near where I live (large metro city) from 2006 and 2007 (still waiting on 2008) and "pit bull" is no where near the top - and NEVER has been. In many cases it's the chocolate lab (but rarely the yellow lab for some reason). Maybe if you had actually asked an animal control officer, they could have told you this. I really wish we could get cities to publish this type of information.CSCook (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my comment. I was not disagreeing with a CDC article quotation that states it is impossible to identify dog breeds/types, because there is no such quotation. To the contrary, the CDC article identifies the breed or type of dog in fatal dog attacks. It does so by counting incidents by compiling incidents from both Human Society of the United States records and media accounts. The article noted that the methodology was developed in a number of past articles. I was objecting to inclusion of a sentence unsupported by an citation or source whatsoever that sought to summarily dismiss the CDC article by claiming breed/type identification was impossible. There needs to be a supporting source or citation to make such a statement. --JamesAM (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Eric Pedrosa writes: Simple.....I dare you to ask them what type of people owned the Pitbull. It always has and always will fall back on irresobnsible owners. Just because you don't understand the breed and are too much of a weak coward to do so, Doesn't mean this breed is any more dangerous than other breeds. Also, people tend to forget or just not educated enough, to know that these dogs show signs of aggression towards animals and not su much humans. Yes..there is a difference between animal aggression and human aggression...NONE of my bully's have show aggression towards ANY human. Why? because I've educated myself and I am a responsible experienced owner. If you ever decide to educate yourself, you will always find that PItbulls are excellent family dogs because of their tolerance and love of children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.75.192.109 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And now Eric presents baseless accusations on part of "irresponsible" animal owners. Also, calling someone a "weak coward" is an attack ad hominum, something that is only inserted when no proper argument can be presented. Claiming that all Pit bull attacks are a result of irresponsible owners is an unjustified, fallacious statement.

Pit bulls have always been known for their high prey drive. Yes, we know there are many Pit bulls that do not attack man, but Pit bulls have an undeniably high prey drive which is manifested in their aggressiveness for other animals and creatures smaller than they (and sometimes not smaller than they are). No, they are not known for being "tolerant of children." Labradors are known as great dogs for children, NOT Pit bulls. Every website about Pit bulls warns of the dangers of children and Pit bulls. Pit bulls are the result of haphazard breeding. Because of this, many Pit bulls are chemically unsound. Genetics play a huge role and no proper Pit bull adoption or information site will forget to mention this. Some Pit bulls cannot be domesticated. Some Pit bulls cannot be socialized. The way you word it is if all pit bull owners are entirely responsible for the thought process and psychological makeup of a Pit bull. That's simply not the reality of Pit bulls, Eric.--NWalterstorf (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding to my previous post about Pit bulls and children. Pit bulls are only good with children if the Pit bull is young and is "raised" alongside small children. In the case of introducing a Pit bull to a family that already has children, Pit bulls are not recommended. If you want a good dog to introduce to children, go with a Labrador or Golden Retriever.--NWalterstorf (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've known many pit bulls that were fine with children, regardless of whether they were brought up with them. My anecdotal observation is no less valid than your opinion. Your statements about "some pit bulls cannot be socialized" applies to any breed. There are some Labradors that can't be socialized. I don't dispute that pit bulls, on average, have a higher prey-drive than some other dogs on average, but prey drive is certainly not limited to pit bulls. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying Jamie, but I'm not sure you understand me. I've been around several people who own Pit Bulls as their family pet. But personal experience isn't a valid input on wikipedia. I never said Pit Bulls cannot be properly socialized around children, I said that Pit Bulls are not recommended. Reason being, for children you want a healthy non-biting dog with a mild temperament. Labradors (the recent breeding deviants aside) and Golden Retrievers are mild temperament dogs that socialize with humans (children and adult) and other animals very well. There are several other non-biting dogs with a great temperament. Pit bulls are a biting dog with an aggressive temperament towards other animals not raised in their territory. As far as my statements on Pit Bull psychology go, these aren't opinions. This is information known by people who work with dogs on a scientific level, not information that comes from "the friendly Pit Bull owner down the street." Yes, we know some breeds of other dogs cannot be socialized. But statistics speak more than generalizations. Pit bulls have a high level of chemical imbalance due to their haphazard breeding history. Take that and throw in a powerful frame and a high-prey drive, and you have a vicious combination. Some of these problem traits show up early in their life, some show up later. Pit Bulls have an undeniably complex psychological makeup. This doesn't make Pit Bulls bad, this makes Pit Bulls different. At the same time you can have a well-bred Pit Bull that socializes well and, with the proper training, makes a great family pet.

The point of my original post is this: You cannot place all problems with Pit bulls on its owner as the unsigned user Eric Pedrosa has. It would be one thing if Pit bulls were one of the most owned dogs, but they aren't. Breeding history, psychology and statistics show that Pit Bulls are complex dogs (again, they are "complex," not bad). There's an old myth that says "there's no problem with dogs, only their owners." The thing is, dogs can have chemical imbalances, and they can become human-aggressive despite proper and loving ownership. It takes a good owner and a well-bred Pit Bull to form a great relationship, nothing short.--NWalterstorf (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that both sides of the coin in this article should have reliable sources. You can find some sources that say they are "biters" and not good family dogs; you can find other equally reliable sources (Cesar Milan, for one) that state that APBT are great "people" dogs, though often not appropriate "dog park" dogs. There is no single "truth" about this topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in the argument that other dogs are more likely to bite a human than a pit bull. This may or may not be true. What is important however, is the damage inflicted by a biting/attack session. The pit bull is renowned for being able to destroy other dogs while fighting. This is undisputed. This is precisely why people buy pit bulls, to feel protected or to feel the sense of a larger physical stature where none really exists. According to the CDC pit bulls are the most likely dog to attack in a meaningful/life-threatening way while unprovoked. Even if the dog was provoked by a human.. child or otherwise, the owner should be held fully responsible for all damages.. as humans have not classified pit bulls or dogs in general as having the reasoning powers of a human. I am not concerned by a chow attack for example, as the chow would ultimately lose or give up. However, with a pit bull attack, you never know if your life is at stake as the pit bull will continue to fight until its death, or the death of the human victim. Also, the role of the owner in affecting the disposition of the pit bull is irrelevant. Since your average person (victim) can't possibly know the nature of the dogs upbringing, it should be assumed the dog is owned for protection/violent purposes. Actually, trusting a person to carry a handgun concealed in public makes far more sense than allowing the ownership of an attack dog, acting upon its own fleeting thoughts.

As a matter of principle, I attempt to provoke any unleashed wandering dog to violence, but I don't try very hard. I stare at the dog right in the eyes intently. If the dog attempts to gain the dominant position by attacking me.. it becomes non victorious. Attention pit bull owner low IQ types, if I encounter your loose pit bull.. it will try to attack me as I stare at it, and when it does I will win. Then I will sue the owner into financial ruin.

These attack dogs are on the way out. They were created by man for a purpose.. like a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.217.90 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that last statement, I have to say that given your statement

"As a matter of principle, I attempt to provoke any unleashed wandering dog to violence, but I don't try very hard. I stare at the dog right in the eyes intently. If the dog attempts to gain the dominant position by attacking me.. it becomes non victorious. Attention pit bull owner low IQ types, if I encounter your loose pit bull.. it will try to attack me as I stare at it, and when it does I will win. Then I will sue the owner into financial ruin."

This is the most rediculous thing I have read for a long time. If you're so stupid to encourage any animal to attack you, then you clearly deserve what's coming to you... be it from a pit bull, a jack russell or even a bloody mouse!! Fool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.31.226.82 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous owners and notorious attacks

Since there is a list of famous owners, why not add some links to some stories about Pitbulls that have become famous in their own right, ie. for mauling innocent adults, children and other dogs? For example Reuben, the pit bull that killed Ellie Lawrenson in Britain a year ago is far more notable than any of the pets listed.

Its perfectly encyclopedic to show how a breed bred to fight and kill continues to be efficient at doing it.

This Youtube channel has a slew of perfect examples.

http://www.youtube.com/user/zupf

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the person who runs it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.239.167 (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, maybe this should be put up... But only if you add such a section for every single other dog breed out there as well, since they're all just as likely to attack if not moreso, even if their jaw structures tend to cause less damage.

If no fair treatment with all breeds, then the point is moot. One could easily compile clips of all other dog breeds each attacking, if they were made infamous enough for people to make the same big deal about it as they do about the three pit bull type breeds. People love to pin "pit bull" to the attacking breed even if the majority of the time it is untrue or unknown, just so it'll make headlines. So any "pit bull attack" stories MUST have a picture of the dog to confirm its breed, or it can be safely assumed to be another or indeterminate breed.

ANY dog can be dangerous if it's neglected then let loose into an unsuspecting public, or left unsupervised with children who often provoke the dog but do not admit it during the news interviews after a bite. Most of the news stories in your example take a distinctive slant as if it were the breed's fault rather than irresponsible owners or parents, or the fact that the dogs are stray. Thus they are imbalanced as sources of information.

It's disturbing that major news stations only run "pit bull bite" stories, but any other breeds are just "dog bites," or suddenly become "pit bull bites". Otherwise, hundreds of dog-bite stories a day are thrown by the wayside in favor of running the more "trendy" pit-bull examples.

This site of fact need not lend still more credence to such biased media. We get more than we should from the news in that regard. So, ALL breeds get attack examples, or none. --Zacloud (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zacloud that there is little point in having media attack stories and YouTube clips in this article (and not in other dog articles). I don't particularly agree about unprovoked attacks, actually being provoked but denied. It seems to me that there are numerous media stories of otherwise calm, not neglected and formerly friendly dogs, apparently attacking without provocation. The skewed media reporting comes from the damage done by larger and stronger dogs compared to the damage done by smaller dogs. It's too bad that Pit Bulls (whether true or not), Rottweilers and some other breeds get blamed by the media for almost all the attacks, but their bites tend to be more serious than those of other breeds, so more newsworthy. I think that Wiki has to discuss both the reality and perceptions with both being scrupulously referenced to avoid the same trap the media has fallen into. Bob98133 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How come no one puts the real issue at hand... the real issue is not about breed, but about the non compliance and non inforcing of local leash laws, local lisencing laws etc.... Currently I have a pitbull, I've pitbulls a while growing up. I currently have 2 children.. My dog loves the kids, non of the pits I've had, have been agressive to me or the family, however, they do show agressivness toward other dogs uninvited on my property, but perfectly fine in PetCo with all the other animals there , and if you come in my home uninvited and unknown to my dog, I can guarantee he'll be agressive toward you. On another note.... I did know 1 person who had a pitbull who was non agressive not only to unknown people, but non agressive toward other dogs either. My married a guy who a golden retriever who you could absolutley NOT Trust around kids. He would bite kids just for getting too close. So once again the real issue is enforcement of laws. I know from experience with neighbors dogs and my local law enforcement could give a you know what about dogs roaming around by themselves even though my city has a licensing of all dogs and a leash law. pinklemonlady23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinklemonlady (talk • contribs)

Diane Whipple

I'm really surprised that there is no mention of Diane Whipple in this article - I believe that the first conviction for murder given to a pit bull owner resulted from Diane Whipple's death. I have added a link to the Wikipedia article on Diane Whipple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robojam (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Diane Whipple's horrific, tragic death WAS NOT by pit bulls! It was an attack by 2 cane corso, a different breed, of the mastiff type. I followed this case from the outset, and there was never a mention of pit bulls!

The Whipple case does not even belong in an article about pit bulls at all. It should be in one relating to the relevant breed or into fatal dog maulings, or illegal dog breeders. Even the subsequent addition--which should be pulled, as adding it to an article about a different breed is simply untrue and highly incindiary--names the cane corso as the dog involved! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.86.54 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the mention of the Whipple case needs to be deleted. No wonder that aggressive dogs are often mis-reported as pit bulls. -Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.173.68 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the Diane Whipple case information as it has nothing to do with Pit Bulls