What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Pit Bull Poll (1 Viewer)

Compared to an average Golden Retriever, an average Pit Bull is more or less likely to attack a pers

  • Pit Bull much more likely to attack than the Golden Retriever

    Votes: 129 52.2%

  • Pit Bull more likely to attack than the Golden Retriever

    Votes: 52 21.1%

  • They're equally likely to attack

    Votes: 61 24.7%

  • Pit Bull much less likely to attack than the Golden Retriever

    Votes: 2 0.8%

  • Pit Bull much less likely to attack than the Golden Retriever

    Votes: 3 1.2%
  • Total voters
    247
Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
We've been having a nice and productive discussion about Pit Bulls. Wanted to see what most people thought on this question:

Compared to an average Golden Retriever, an average Pit Bull is more or less likely to attack a person than the Golden Retriever?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agree with CN; I'm of the belief that a large portion of a dog's tendency to attack is based upon their training, or lack thereof. Whereas a pit bull is viewed by most as a dangerous animal is often the result of poor or lack of training. I've read that Dachshunds and toy poodles can be more ferocious than pit bulls.

 
I think the biggest difference is in the damage they can conflict once they've chosen to attack. 

I have two labradoodles, each over 80 lbs. We've had them since birth, and my boys (5 - 3) absolutely love them. And the dogs love my boys, too. That being said, the dogs are never left alone with the boys. If I'm not home, wife puts them in their crates or outside. 100% of the interaction between my dogs and kids are with me very close by. They've never shown an ounce of aggression, but I understand they are animals. That being said, if they did attack, for whatever reason, I feel confident I'd be able to break it up quickly with minimal damage, and I'm the definition of helicopter parent when my boys are around the dogs. Never more than a few feet. I couldn't say the same if I owned two pit bulls instead. Even with me that close by, I'd never feel confident in my ability to stop two pit bulls in the case they snapped and decided they didn't want to play with my 3 y/o any more. 

 
Spin and CN are correct here. It is all in how they are trained. People forget that dogs are animals and can react very viciously even when trained very well. The strength of a pit bull just results in greater damage if they do react viciously.

A friend of mine put down her lab after it attacked her teen son when he was playing with the dog and its ball. The lab appeared well trained but just snapped and took a quick snap at the sons face. Left some pretty bad scars. Aside from this one event the dog was by all accounts a calm and loved member of the family.

 
Hilts said:
Raised in equal environments they're equally likely to attack. They are not raised in equal environments, therefore pit Bulls are more likely to attack. 
Click to expand...
I think this is the key. Pit Bulls are more likely to be trained as guard dogs, Retrievers either for sport or as family pets. 

 
DallasDMac said:
Seems like half a poll as it treats the two attacks equally. A more applicable poll would have been, which animal is more likely to seriously maim or even kill a human, a pit or a lab?
Click to expand...
That could be a followup I guess but I'd have to think that would be 100% in favor of a Pit Bull doing more damage with an attack. While clearly there is differences of opinion in how likely they are to attack, I can't imagine there'd be much discussion about which dog is capable of more damage. 

 
I wonder which is more likely to be loved and cared for as a member of the family and which is more likely to be used and disposed of. 

 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study in 2000 on dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) that covered the years 1979–1998. The report concluded that relying on media coverage of dog-bite-related fatalities presents a biased view of the dogs involved. They stated that media reports are likely to only cover about 74% of the actual incidents and that dog attacks involving certain breeds may be more likely to receive media coverage. They also reported that since breed identification is difficult and subjective, attacks may be more likely to be "ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression".[10]

The study found reports of 327 people killed by dogs over the 20-year period. Some breed information was available for 238 (73%) of the fatalities. Of 227 incidents with relevant data, 133 (58%) were unrestrained dogs and on the owners' property; 55 (24%) were loose off the owners' property; 38 (17%) were restrained dogs on their owners' property; and only one (less than 1%) was restrained off the owners' property.[10]

The study defined dog attacks as "a human death caused by trauma from a dog bite". Excluded from the study were deaths by disease caused by dog bites, strangulation on a scarf or leash pulled by a dog, heart attacks or traffic accident, and falling injury or fire ant bites from being pushed down by a dog. The study also excluded four deaths by trauma from dog bites by police dogs or guard dogs employed by the government.

The study found that Pit bulls and Rottweilers alone accounted for 67% of deaths
Click to expand...
Doesn't exactly answer the OQ, but it's what most people care about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My half-brother got a borderline psychotic pitbull when I was five years old. Very aggressive and it scared the #### out of me.

My best friend has a pitbull that is the sweetest thing ever. She is about as aggressive as a down pillow and loves little kids.

So really, it just depends on how the pitbull was brought up and what its genetics are. If you can find a pitbull with no aggressive tendencies and no family history of being used for fighting, they can be fantastic. Otherwise, :unsure:

 
My super nice friend who is 120 lbs had half her face ripped off by her sweet little pitbull. It really was a nice dog and she still has it. ??

 
Joe Bryant said:
That could be a followup I guess but I'd have to think that would be 100% in favor of a Pit Bull doing more damage with an attack. While clearly there is differences of opinion in how likely they are to attack, I can't imagine there'd be much discussion about which dog is capable of more damage. 
Click to expand...
i'm really not sure about that. when i was young my family had a dog that weighed maybe 45 pounds. it was some kind of mutt, not even sure what it resembled based on it being a medium size dog. but without a doubt, that dog was one of the more dangerous one's i have ever seen. definitely wasn't a pit, but my mom walked her one time, 2 dogs, twice the size of her approached my mom and her, and she grabbed one of the dogs by the throat and pawed the other one at the same time. she was probably some sort of collie, but i am sure if you substituted collie in the example people would say pit bull, and maybe my example is a complete anomaly, but i don't think it is as certain of a thing as people think

 
A lot of it is training, some of it is personality/temperament. The breed of dog with the highest number of bites? The dachshund, who are both stubborn enough to give a mule lessons, and possessing a massive Napoleon complex.

 
modogg said:
i'm really not sure about that. when i was young my family had a dog that weighed maybe 45 pounds. it was some kind of mutt, not even sure what it resembled based on it being a medium size dog. but without a doubt, that dog was one of the more dangerous one's i have ever seen. definitely wasn't a pit, but my mom walked her one time, 2 dogs, twice the size of her approached my mom and her, and she grabbed one of the dogs by the throat and pawed the other one at the same time. she was probably some sort of collie, but i am sure if you substituted collie in the example people would say pit bull, and maybe my example is a complete anomaly, but i don't think it is as certain of a thing as people think
Click to expand...
really. 

:lol:

 
BigSteelThrill said:
really. 

:lol:
Click to expand...
it scared my mom pretty good, because this was one of those dogs that you would never expect it from. she definitely had some tendencies and showed signs of abuse (was scared to death of going down the basement stairs, and would flinch often like previous owner kicked her). But she was more fur then anything, 45 pounds is probably being generous. never any issue with her and our family even when she deathly sick.

 
modogg said:
it scared my mom pretty good, because this was one of those dogs that you would never expect it from. she definitely had some tendencies and showed signs of abuse (was scared to death of going down the basement stairs, and would flinch often like previous owner kicked her). But she was more fur then anything, 45 pounds is probably being generous. never any issue with her and our family even when she deathly sick.
Click to expand...
I know a pittbull that was the nicest thing ever and killed at least 17 other dogs 12 cats, and a handful of varmints... but only 2 children and 1 adult. And he wasn't as bad as a couple others.

:brush:

 
Spin said:
I think the biggest difference is in the damage they can conflict once they've chosen to attack. 

I have two labradoodles, each over 80 lbs. We've had them since birth, and my boys (5 - 3) absolutely love them. And the dogs love my boys, too. That being said, the dogs are never left alone with the boys. If I'm not home, wife puts them in their crates or outside. 100% of the interaction between my dogs and kids are with me very close by. They've never shown an ounce of aggression, but I understand they are animals. That being said, if they did attack, for whatever reason, I feel confident I'd be able to break it up quickly with minimal damage, and I'm the definition of helicopter parent when my boys are around the dogs. Never more than a few feet. I couldn't say the same if I owned two pit bulls instead. Even with me that close by, I'd never feel confident in my ability to stop two pit bulls in the case they snapped and decided they didn't want to play with my 3 y/o any more. 
Click to expand...
Does this seem crazy to anyone else?

 
same.  not a great poll Joe.  Any dog can be raised to attack.  The problem is what happens when they do.

 
comfortably numb said:
Same. It's the way a dog is raised.

Just when they do attack/bite...dear Lord the differece in damage could be fatal.
Click to expand...
Agreed

Hilts said:
Raised in equal environments they're equally likely to attack. They are not raised in equal environments, therefore pit Bulls are more likely to attack. 
Click to expand...
Yep.

If I know the owners I'm probably not worried about either (or maybe I am but I'll know that ahead of time).

But if I meet a random pit bull on the street I'm more concerned than if I meet a golden. I know this sounds odd ("why are you meeting dogs in the street?") But I'll probably pass 2 or 3 on an average long run. No issues so far.

Josie Maran said:
Does this seem crazy to anyone else?
Click to expand...
No. The 3-5 year old should never be left alone with dogs. These kids are dangerous, putting the kids in crates is just smart parenting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dedfin said:
I don't have kids, so I don't have experience with the situation.  I would think that even docile dogs would get annoyed by 3-5 year olds getting in their face and pulling their ears and stuff.  Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...
I just don’t see how the rule is even feasible. Say your kids are playing in the basement or family room and you go to take a piss. You crate the dog?

 
Dedfin said:
I don't have kids, so I don't have experience with the situation.  I would think that even docile dogs would get annoyed by 3-5 year olds getting in their face and pulling their ears and stuff.  Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...
This is sort of getting to the point I think. If I couldn't leave my dog alone with my five year old, I wouldn't have the dog. 

And, it's my opinion that all dogs are not equal when it comes to "Can I leave this dog alone with my five year old". 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slightly more, ONLY because of the purpose they were bred for makes their breed-wide temperament slightly more aggressive/fearless/confrontational. But after hundreds of years of domestication, raised in equal upbringings, the difference is massively negligible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the other thread.

I'm a dog lover and have had lots of different breeds and mutts over the last 30 years as an adult.

I had always been 100% rooted in the "it's 100% about how the dog is raised. There aren't bad dogs, there are bad people who abuse or don't raise a dog properly and they create bad dogs". 

A Rhodesian Ridgeback changed that for me. My friend who's a vet strongly advised me not to get one. I did anyway. Excellent breeder and raised him from 9 weeks. I'm not super hardcore into dog training but know a good bit. Well versed in the different training styles and such. I'd put myself as easily above average dog owner. I laughed off the "protection / aggressive stuff about Ridgebacks. At 1 year old, I had an awesome dog that was my best friend. And if another person got between me and him, he'd bare his teeth and growl. He never had any sort of protection or guard dog type training. I raised him exactly like I'd raised my other dogs. 

I was floored. Couldn't believe it. He snapped at my wife one day when she was between me and the dog. It's one thing for a chihuahua to snap. Another for a 110 rock solid muscle dog. Sending him back to the breeder was a tough decision. But with at the time 4 kids in my house under 12, I felt I had no choice. 

What this told me in no uncertain terms was some breeds are WAY more naturally and inherently aggressive than others. 

I've since seen this with several other dogs I've owned, We have a small bit of property and we often have multiple dogs. Lots of rescue / strays over the years. I've seen a dramatic difference among those dogs in respect to how likely they would be to attack a person. 

I've also personally experienced plenty of dogs that are thought to be "aggressive" breeds be completely fine. I have a good friend with a Doberman that's completely chill. Another friend with two pit bull mixes that both seem like excellent dogs. 

But I've personally experienced the Nature over Nuture among different breeds when they were raised the exact same way. 

I"m not sure what that means in a practical sense. I'm not in favor or exterminating a breed. But based on my own personal experience, I completely disagree all breeds are the same when it comes to how likely they are to attack a person.

 
Regarding this

The study found that Pit bulls and Rottweilers alone accounted for 67% of deaths
Click to expand...
What if I told you that there was another product contributed to an extremely large amount of fatalities compared to another very similar product.  Would you guys consider banning that?

 
Joe Bryant said:
This is sort of getting to the point I think. If I couldn't leave my dog alone with my five year old, I wouldn't have the dog. 

And, it's my opinion that all dogs are not equal when it comes to "Can I leave this dog alone with my five year old". 
Click to expand...
(divorced parent with two daughters living with me at various stages of life). Once upon a time, I would text my daughters that dinner was ready, rather than attempt to knock on the door that my dog was guarding. My dog loves me, conditionally.

 
Seems as good a place as any...

Dated a woman once upon a time who'd done relief work in Kenya and Uganda.  Lived in Nairobi for a while where she adopted a (45 pound?) street cur, and then brought it back to the US when she returned.

It never barked or growled, but it had a hair trigger if you got too close to her in a confined space and went straight for your ankles like it meant it.  I do pretty well with dogs, but that one scared the #### out of me.  I never got close to winning it over.

Having said, it couldn't kill me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Seems as good a place as any...

Dated a woman once upon a time who'd done relief work in Kenya and Uganda.  Lived in Nairobi for a while where she adopted a street cur, and then brought it back to the US when she returned.

It never barked or growled, but it had a hair trigger if you got too close to her in a confined space and went straight for your ankles like it meant it.  I do pretty well with dogs, but that one scared the #### out of me.

Having said, it couldn't kill me.
Click to expand...
This is the difference. I feel I could adequately defend myself against most domestic dogs. Not pits or Rottweilers or other strong breeds though. 

Pretty sure I could beat a Lab up enough to save my own life. 

 
I haven't spent enough time with the breed to make any kind of informed judgement. When I lived in MD, my idiot neighbor had one that he bought from a shady breeder, something about a "rescued fighting dog's litter". Real smart for a guy who had two kids under 10yo at home. But this guy was seriously a complete moron.

I was afraid of the dog from the moment I saw her, but Cletus wanted me to make friends. So I did my usual "Who's a good girl???" in my happy dog voice and she clamped onto my hand like a crocodile on a ham hock. I wondered if the dog sensed my fear and instinctively went after me, which in retrospect was the wrong thing to think about. About two weeks later Cletus comes over crying because he had to put her down. I remember thinking he was lucky the thing didn't maul his kids and welcome him home with a severed arm in her mouth.

So that one experience sucked but I still bounce back and forth from believing they're genetically predisposed to aggression. The anecdotal evidence is all over the place and most people seem to make a rash judgement with incomplete info, and then it propagates and you have no idea who to believe. I lean toward believing if you gave me ANY 8 week old puppy that I could socialize daily for the first year, it would be as sweet as our Carmela who is afraid of the garbage truck. But I also know the domestic dog is one of the most diverse species on earth and I have no idea to what extent certain traits are indelible or not. I'm definitely interested in learning more.

 
McGarnicle said:
I haven't spent enough time with the breed to make any kind of informed judgement. When I lived in MD, my idiot neighbor had one that he bought from a shady breeder, something about a "rescued fighting dog's litter". Real smart for a guy who had two kids under 10yo at home. But this guy was seriously a complete moron.

I was afraid of the dog from the moment I saw her, but Cletus wanted me to make friends. So I did my usual "Who's a good girl???" in my happy dog voice and she clamped onto my hand like a crocodile on a ham hock. I wondered if the dog sensed my fear and instinctively went after me, which in retrospect was the wrong thing to think about. About two weeks later Cletus comes over crying because he had to put her down. I remember thinking he was lucky the thing didn't maul his kids and welcome him home with a severed arm in her mouth.

So that one experience sucked but I still bounce back and forth from believing they're genetically predisposed to aggression. The anecdotal evidence is all over the place and most people seem to make a rash judgement with incomplete info, and then it propagates and you have no idea who to believe. I lean toward believing if you gave me ANY 8 week old puppy that I could socialize daily for the first year, it would be as sweet as our Carmela who is afraid of the garbage truck. But I also know the domestic dog is one of the most diverse species on earth and I have no idea to what extent certain traits are indelible or not. I'm definitely interested in learning more.
Click to expand...
This is virtually impossible to ascertain unless you had hundreds of dogs per breed raised in precisely the same way (so tens of thousands of dogs). 

So unless this study can be accomplished, I’m just going to assume that hundreds or thousands of years of selective breeding actually amounted to differences in the breeds, and avoid ones bred for viscousness. 

 
Anyone removing the nature component from the nature/nurture impact on an animals demeanor is either kidding themselves or don’t understand animals. 

There have been bloodlines of pits (and other dogs) that have been bred for their genetic predisposition for aggression. Genetics play a part, as well as environment. It’s the same reason many retrievers love water and to fetch, or why boxers will rear up and play with their paws. It’s not universal but traits are genetic, including aggression. 

This is not to say all Pits are aggressive, or that a bad bloodline is a lost cause. Environment comes into play once the animal is born. But as with anything there are odds... 

 
McGarnicle said:
I haven't spent enough time with the breed to make any kind of informed judgement. When I lived in MD, my idiot neighbor had one that he bought from a shady breeder, something about a "rescued fighting dog's litter". Real smart for a guy who had two kids under 10yo at home. But this guy was seriously a complete moron.

I was afraid of the dog from the moment I saw her, but Cletus wanted me to make friends. So I did my usual "Who's a good girl???" in my happy dog voice and she clamped onto my hand like a crocodile on a ham hock. I wondered if the dog sensed my fear and instinctively went after me, which in retrospect was the wrong thing to think about. About two weeks later Cletus comes over crying because he had to put her down. I remember thinking he was lucky the thing didn't maul his kids and welcome him home with a severed arm in her mouth.

So that one experience sucked but I still bounce back and forth from believing they're genetically predisposed to aggression. The anecdotal evidence is all over the place and most people seem to make a rash judgement with incomplete info, and then it propagates and you have no idea who to believe. I lean toward believing if you gave me ANY 8 week old puppy that I could socialize daily for the first year, it would be as sweet as our Carmela who is afraid of the garbage truck. But I also know the domestic dog is one of the most diverse species on earth and I have no idea to what extent certain traits are indelible or not. I'm definitely interested in learning more.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That sucks to be bitten. Glad it wasn't worse. I used to think just like you in that any dog could be socialized to be sweet. I was proven 100% wrong with my Rhodesian Ridgeback. Raised exactly like my other dogs from a puppy and it had definite aggression toward other people issues. Totally related it seemed to protecting me. Wasn't a mean dog. He was a dog that didn't want anyone near me. Which is problematic living in a house with five other people, four of them children. 

 
[icon] said:
Anyone removing the nature component from the nature/nurture impact on an animals demeanor is either kidding themselves or don’t understand animals. 

There have been bloodlines of pits (and other dogs) that have been bred for their genetic predisposition for aggression. Genetics play a part, as well as environment. It’s the same reason many retrievers love water and to fetch, or why boxers will rear up and play with their paws. It’s not universal but traits are genetic, including aggression. 

This is not to say all Pits are aggressive, or that a bad bloodline is a lost cause. Environment comes into play once the animal is born. But as with anything there are odds... 
Click to expand...
Aren't Pitbulls bred to be non-aggressive towards humans? ... cause you kind of want that trait when you are fighting them.

 
mr roboto said:
This is the difference. I feel I could adequately defend myself against most domestic dogs. Not pits or Rottweilers or other strong breeds though. 

Pretty sure I could beat a Lab up enough to save my own life. 
Click to expand...
right 

I believe it's how you raise a dog but I have 2 vizslas. They could lick you to death. They are extremely friendly. The male will at times snap at my 10 year old daughter. We laugh it off as he doesn't like her. If it was a different breed I would feel very different and unsafe. Not sure I would even want the dog in my house.

Sometimes when other kids come over the female can get protective and barks at some kid. I just yell at her and she backs off.

God forbid if any of my dogs were to bite a kid I would grab the dog and throw it accross the room to get it away from the kid.

If it was a different breed it would be a race to save the kids life and the real possibility of me getting hurt.

I get concerned that my dogs will knock over my 83 year old mom when they jump up to kiss her.

I would never want the responsibility knowing that if there was a .01 chance of an attack or bite that it could be very destructive or fatal with other breeds. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KarmaPolice
  • Poll
FBG Movie Club - DotM: Steven Spielberg
3 4 5
Replies
230
Views
6K
need2know
need2know
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Talk About Alcohol
8 9 10
Replies
463
Views
13K
Ack88
A
GordonGekko
Is Life Much Harder While Being Very Attractive Or Being Very Unattractive? (24/30)
Replies
31
Views
970
offdee
offdee

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top