How neutering dogs became the norm(moosenuggets.substack.com) |
How neutering dogs became the norm(moosenuggets.substack.com) |
Would you have cops seize unfixed animals, vets report same, perhaps a tip line to report your neighbors? Extra cops to handle enforcement, extra beuracrats to manage and track compliance?
Since fixing all dogs would make dogs extinct I presume you wanted licenses for breeders. I'm sure the same people won't just pay a license fee and do the same things maybe we can require an an education program hire more paper pushers to write additional regulations, hire inspectors.
I'm sure this whole thing won't just become a massive tax on dog ownership ensuring dogs start at 2000 with a $200 annual tax stamp.
Everyone that ever wants to fix the world via legislation says that there ought to be a law ____. You have to actually enforce the laws and deal with implications.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096726/
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsofSpayNe...
Male dogs especially seem to suffer significant long term health effects from being neutered. A much more humane option would be performing vasectomies and leaving female dogs their ovaries.
1. Pyometra. Dogs do not have menopause, but they may stop cycling. When they do they can develop a uterine infection that can become life threatening in hours.
2. Perineal hernias. Unneutered, aging dogs are at risk for pelvic floor weakness that results in specialty surgery (and neutering), costing thousands of dollars.
3. Hit by car. Unneutered pets are much more likely to escape randomly and get hit by cars. Even pets that normally do not run away from their owners.
4. Mammary tumor. Unspayed or late-spayed females are at significantly more risk than those spayed at 6 months.
5. Pregnancy. Shocked pikachu face when the unspayed chihuahua actually did get knocked up by their friend's unneutered chow.
6. Bleeding. All bitches bleed during proestrus.
7. Behavior. The dog-park behavior people like in their pets is the behavior of neutered dogs. Unneutered dogs are much more likely to attempt to dominate the other dogs and get into fights.
That said, it's a trade off. Unneutered males definitely have a different growth pattern and develop a stockier build. They also seem to have significantly fewer issues with the cranial cruciate ligament in the stifle (knee). There are some other, more hand-wavey associations of cancer in golden retrievers related to neutering, but it's hard to tell if that's just an artifact of the data as it's more likely unneutered dogs appear at teaching hospitals for injuries (hit by car, fights) rather than for cancer.
I would love to just recommend people be responsible adults. I wish that the US could be like Norway, where people don't seem to abandon their unneutered animals, and they don't seem to have problems with their bad behavior.
About eight weeks later, I took him for a walk along the same canal and let him off. Rounded a corner where he'd got a bit ahead, and he was just gone, disappeared without a trace. I started off as quickly as I could down the canal, passing various people who (as if it were some kind of joke) said things like "oh yes, going very fast that way". Eventually, got him back because a cyclist had the common sense to apprehend him and wait for me - "my dog does this all the time." This was after almost a mile, so the dog hadn't been hanging around.
Beardies have a reputation for going AWOL, but on this occasion I can only presume he had some memory of that fine young spaniel he'd pursued previously, and decided to rejoin the chase. I haven't been back there since. Have considered getting him neutered but we basically like him as he is and have learned to be super-careful at any time. Helps to be warned if someone has a bitch who is likely to be especially interesting at a given time, most owners are good about it but a few just don't seem to understand.
Is there evidence of a causal relationship here?
I've seen animals do some absolutely bonkers crazy stuff while in heat. I know an intact female pet that literally broke a screen window to jump out said window in order to mate. This was a second story window, yes she jumped out of a second story window!
So I don't doubt it for even a second.
Always a good recommendation.
Neutering dogs and cats seems the consequence of "owning" in an urban or otherwise densely populated area. It feels wrong to me. I would personally get a farm before I get pets.
Then, I have horses. Neutering males is common here for our breeds, as stallions are pretty difficult to manage. It is said that Portuguese breeds are often left intact, as a result of behavioral selection.
The word “bitch” has changed so much in cultural meaning during the last 50 years or so that somehow it feels more offensive to call a female dog a “bitch” then a human.
How is “bitch” used in veterinary hospitals?
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/dog-breeding/choosing-a-br...
The only thing that's arguably changed is the extent to which 'dog' is a genderless generic term.
Also describing strays as living successfully on their own is absurd. Sure some haven’t starved to death or been crippled by random acts of violence by humans. Any one of them would still prefer a home where their physical and emotional needs are met.
Source: https://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and...
In some parts of the world, unowned dogs seem to flourish; for example India has more than 30 million street dogs. However this is not a good thing, since dog on human violence happens too, and 20,000 people in India die of rabies every year. Street dogs are well known for attacking people, so even if the dogs can survive on their own it's still irresponsible to allow that.
In 1970, less than 10 percent of licensed dogs were spay or neutered. Today, about 80 percent are.
From 1979, everyday, Bob would end his show with this message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTpolOR0kQo
It's where I learned about the issue...
If by “odd” you mean “he saved millions and millions of unwanted cats and dogs from ending up in kill shelters or being abandoned in fields”, well, I’d take that on my tombstone.
Pseudonym, or one of the famous people following their names.
I used to know a Doctor Blood, for instance.
His main job was "game show host". He just started using his immensely popular show "The Price Is Right" as a platform for a small "hey get your pets spayed/neutered" announcement at the end of every episode.
In my own anecdotal experience, my male golden retriever (who I've spent considerable time socializing and training since adoption at 8 weeks), started to display some territorial and dominance issues around the 18mo mark. This behavior was particularly apparent around other intact males of equal-to-larger sizes than him, and culminated in a defensive fight with another (intact) lab mix.
I made the choice to schedule his neutering that day.
Since then (~6 months ago), his behavior has mellowed out considerably -- far more so than what I would otherwise attribute to maturing. I try not to judge people that harshly who make the choice not to neuter in the area (urban US city), but at the same time believe too many minimize an intact Fuffy's higher (IMO) propensity for dominant and aggressive behavior in social circumstances. Too often have I heard, 'he's a <retriever/doodle/some other family dog..>, obviously he wouldn't hurt a fly!' and it really grinds my gears.
Having an intact dog in a denser area is a huge responsibility (beyond potential offspring) and good owners should recognize this..especially if they're bringing these dogs into semi-controlled environments with strangers -- who, I'd posit, are more concerned about a harder-to-control Fluffy stepping over the line and their dog getting injured or worse, rather than causing an unexpected pregnancy.
It ignores all the benefits of neutering just to make a point.
Also, my dog is neutered, and is not aggressive at all, EXCEPT towards un-neutered dogs. Where I live it's illegal to bring an un-neutered dog to the dog park, but some people do. When that happens I don't make a fuss about it, but I do leave the dog park early. So when I'm asking an owner of their dog is neutered it's not because I am pushing some bad societal norm, it's because I'm trying to prevent a preventable incident.
In my social circle at least, neutering your dog is the social norm. If you don’t, and then break the law to take your dog to the park, most people would say you’re acting irresponsibly. Perhaps these sort of people aren’t compelled to train their dogs properly?
Or to be more charitable, since intact dogs can’t go to socialization classes, is it any wonder that they are aggressive?
That said, there could be some correlation there where less informed owners who don't train their dogs and don't neuter them. In general though, neutering has been shown (in the same dog) to help curb some unwanted behaviors. Trainers can and will recommend neutering in some cases [0]
[0] For example, Victoria Stillwell is a well-known trainer who recommended neutering this dog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXaGxFzv-GM
Sweden did had a catch-and-kill program about a hundred years ago. It is mostly forgotten here, but it had two parts. A law was made that all dogs must be ear marked (today chipped) and listed in the national registry with their owner, and any dog that did not have a marking was killed. When a puppy is sold it must also have a veterinarian checkup, and the first thing any vet will do is to chip it and fill in the register data.
If a registered dog run away and get lost it will likely end up at the police, and the owner will get a bill for housing and handling. If you sell a dog, a breeder better make sure the registration papers get signed or the seller will be held liable. This way there are not much room for a feral dog population to get started.
Here in Norway they will be captured, and the police will handle them[1].
If the owner does not claim the captured dog within a week, the police will find a new home or shelter[2], or put it down.
[1]: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2003-07-04-74/KAPITTEL_3#...
For example, there are many animal diseases that used to be an instant death sentence for any dog or cat that ended up in a shelter with disease (and still are in most places in the US). Some pioneering shelters have developed programs that now save huge numbers of animals with these diseases. For example, parvovirus in puppies is very contagious and it's a grueling course, but puppies that survive parvo have normal lives and can be great dogs. Austin now saves around 500 puppies a year with parvo that end up in shelters. Most other cities still kill these animals, so adopting proven programs to save them would go a long way to ending any supposed "shortage" of animals.
Parvo is just one example:
https://www.austinpetsalive.org/programs/ringworm-adoption-c...
https://www.austinpetsalive.org/programs/parvo-puppy-icu
https://www.austinpetsalive.org/programs/feline-leukemia-ado...
The whole practice feels archaic and somewhat cruel. I understand why people do it, but I wonder how much of it is societal/vet pressure rather than in the best interest of the dog/owner.
It’s a pleasant surprise to find other people caring about this in non-humans.
Robbing PETA to Spay Paul: Do Animal Rights Include Reproductive Rights? - David Boonin
https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
The author does have a point that not sterilizing your pet will likely lead to criticism, even though it's a more nuanced situation.
But still — the solution to all of the sourcing problems is "do your research, and get an individual, not a breed".
If there's an actual shortage of adoptable dogs in your area, talk to the shelters about it, and also consider _not getting a pet quite yet_, rather then taking random advice from the internet and telling people to breed their pets.
Personally I'm in France: much less neutering here, but also there's a serious feral cat problem in my village, and also too many puppies. And toxoplasmosis infection rates are massive... it seems like a much more obvious choice to sterilize free-roaming pets, but still many don't.
For myself I decided not to own any pets unless they could live naturally as they were created. (I own two neutered cats now but they were neutered before I took ownership.) I totally understand the author's sentiment, first the hesitation and then an absolute certainty that something is deeply wrong here even though you cannot yet rationalize it. The only thing I disagree with is that "it's easier to lie".
Every few years, some fund pops up to pay vets to do free neutering and spaying: that really helps most of the problem as most will do it then; just wish the other owners could be fined if their dogs causes the stray dog issue to rise again (which costs money; there is dog catchers, the pound, refuges, effect on tourism etc).
Lots of people breed dogs inside and outside metropolitan areas.
[0]https://www.lancasterpuppies.com/puppy-search/breed/labradoo...
That leave about 20% of licensed dogs and who-knows what percent of unlicensed dogs unneutered. This leaves plenty of space for both neutering to be the norm and for some people to breed their own dogs...
Wait, what? I'm 95% sure dogs can't be homosexual but someone correct me if I'm wrong..
Interestingly, among giraffes, male-male sex is actually much more common than male-female sex, some studies found that up to 90% of giraffe sex was male-male. (One bit on Wikipedia says giraffes are occasionally described as "especially gay", which I found amusing)
- Eating them: bad
- Mutilating their genetials so that they behave well and you can call them your friend or child: good
The equivalent of tying tubes for female dogs is possible; I gather. Again there's little point although the difference in doing is less. I seem to recall that dogs tend to regain fertility after a couple years too.
Do dogs even have a natural environment? Dogs are separated from any natural source by many thousands of years, and done in a way to make them easy for them to be owned by humans.
Where all this comes in to play for me is that in rural areas there’s a lot more room for activities and less probability to run into ill-fitting or unsocialized/untrained dogs - thus mitigating a lot of social risk.
I think of it as a handicap but city dog ownership is not unattainable, given reasonably modest resources and hard work. I’ve lived in and raised dogs in both urban and rural areas, fwiw
Every households had hunting dogs, guarding dogs, shepherd dogs or just, you know, family dogs. I guess their role in this "society" was much clearer than in dense urban areas.
I would estimate that at least half of the people who own dogs really should not. All of the aggressive, anxious, barking, fighting, and crying dogs I walk past just drives me nuts.
source:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pitbull+attack
Edit:
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2019...
69% of fatalities due to dog bites were caused by the same breed.
"A huge fraction of the pit bulls which are currently in shelters are not compatible with most homes who want to adopt dogs"
Pit bulls, whether or not they are inherently aggressive (and let's be honest, you get more aggressive pit bulls than Golden Retrievers), can do a HUGE amount of damage when they are.
Adopting a dog which can't be trusted around kids, much less other dogs (which is REALLY common for pets which end up in shelters), is simply a non-starter for many families, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect otherwise.
I have some friends that have pit bulls. They never attacked a person, but they did attempt to kill a goat. I can't think of another type of dog that would maul livestock unprovoked with no history of aggression. They are just naturally aggressive, and anyone that says otherwise is a shill or ignorant.
https://adbadog.com/truth-behind-dogsbite-org/
Personally I prefer the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Dog Breeders Association to a single biased source that is basically the qanon of breed specific legislation.
The only reason that I have slightly more respect for dogsbite is at least dogs actually have teeth whereas the pizza place in fact did not have a basement.
I think I understand the argument that animal rights activists make for spaying and neutering that it controls the population by making sure each pet has someone to care for it, reducing euthanasia rate and reducing strays that might attack people or other pets. The article argues this as well and explains that there's more to it than societal/vet pressure. Controlling the pet population via spaying or neutering seems humane to me, especially considering the alternative of putting pets down en masse.
Can you explain the other side of the argument? Why do you feel spaying or neutering pets is cruel?
'Cruel' may be a stretch, as I know the procedure is safe, apart from some minor discomfort to the dog. But you are fundamentally altering your dog, and I just don't want to take it lightly. It will almost certainly change who he is (his behavior, energy).
[0] - Decent summary of benefits and risks, with paper citations at the end. I haven't done a deep dive of the science yet. https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/long-term-health-risks...
whatever you choose, I recommend you make a decision soon and act on it promptly. my dad wavered over this decision with our family dog for a few years and when he finally decided to get him fixed at age three or four, I do think it was worse for him than if it had been done at a younger age.
I'm planning to make the decision by the time he turns 1, in a few months. While my dog isn't aggressive by any stretch, he is extremely high energy. I do wonder if neutering him will calm him down a little.
Vets will neuter cats at six weeks which seems incredibly young, but “it’s fine”.
As far as I can tell there isn’t much actual science on this.
In my experience the best effect is on male cats — they become very sweet and friendly.
He has an excellent disposition and has never displayed aggression to people or other pet, so we decided neutering wasn’t going to be needed and our vet supported that decision. An added benefit for larger dogs is they tend to regulate their body weight better when unneutered. Again, good for long term join health.
I have noticed that other dogs are aggressive towards him. I have wondered if this has to do with him being unneutered and his size. He has been attacked quite a few times by other dogs. He tends turn his back and not fight back initially and then, if the attack continues, turns to face and give a low growl and warning snap. That usually ends it and the other dog calms down and acts friendly.
I find often the owners of the attacking dog fall into one of two categories and neutering usually doesn’t have much to do with it.
1. The owner is afraid. They are afraid to lose control of their dog. They have no confidence that they can control the dog and panic when the dog misbehaves.
2. The owner yells at and then hits their dog after the dog attacks my dog.
Some dogs are going to be naturally more aggressive, but, like people, environment and proper socializing when young tends to have an outweighted effect on how aggressive or not a dog is.
He was probably a lot more to handle because of not neutering him but it worked for us. Next time I think I'd go ahead with the procedure. He'll be just as awesome and will fit into society better.
Our dog is a rescue and was neutered at a very young age before he came to us. His development was rather delayed and he's definitely behind. I really can't imagine doing this just because it makes your life "easier". I would never do it without a good reason.
I worked long and hard to find a dog with the temperament I wanted, and, have spent the past 2 years molding him into an amazing dog.
I decided, before I even got him, that I would only neuter him if it was absolutely required for his health or his behavior. At the two year mark (which is in January) I'm fairly sure that it won't ever be required for any kind of behavioral reasons. It hasn't always been perfect and I know at times things would be easier if I HAD neutered him.
I also didn't choose the easiest breed, he is a purebred Parson Russel Terrier
> The whole practice feels archaic and somewhat cruel
I'm not sure its archaic or cruel. For virtually all rescued animals, it's the best path.
> I wonder how much of it is societal/vet pressure rather than in the best interest of the dog/owner
1000% social and vet pressure. In my circle of dog people, who are more conscious than most, being a part of dog agility/sports, I still have people who get hostile when I say that I don't intend to neuter him unless it's absolutely required. They insist his behaviour will turn foul. At first "no way he doesn't become a terror by 1 year old", recently "wait till he's 2," soon I'm sure I'll hear about how awful having an uncastrated 3-year-old will be.
The pressure from my veterinarian was INSANE. Keep in mind this is a vet practice I've been using for over THIRTY years, I've had 9 dogs and 1 cat under their care. The owner/veterinarian who I've known all that time and is a close family friend was strongly in favor. Her associate who I see now as the owner is transitioning out of practice (I've been there that long!) was nearly hostile about my decision and flat-out told me I was wrong and tried to fear-monger me about how I wouldn't be able to control him.
> I understand why people do it
I, too, understand why people do it. It was hard work. It required lots of careful planning to find a dog with the right temperament. It STILL requires lots more work than if I just got him snipped. I will still do it again. It's not for everyone.
If not, is it because you’re against the pain of it?
Beyond that, declawing can cause unwanted behavioral issues in cats (unlike de-sexing when behavioral changes are positive/wanted)
> According to Petchi, there are around 1.2 million pet dogs across Iran and about 350,000 of them are in Tehran.
https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-dog-walkers-2019013...
*Service animals are often excepted, by law.
I assumed "off leash" because if he can run off even when on a leash, then it's worse than I imagined.
By continuing to use the word "bitch" for its original meaning, vets, dog breeders, and the like are fighting against the appropriation (and degradation) of their culture by the world at large.
Also, some vets find the reduction in aggression claims somewhat overstated if not dubious. It can prevent sexual hyperness and bad behavior in some dogs where that is an issue, but again the benefits are often overstated.
The only real tangible and pragmatic arguement for is it prevents animal shelters from being full of even more neglected animals and animals being put down because they have no where to go. Again, if people were responsible...
From an ethical / moral standpoint you could get into the concept of personhood and partial personhood (we ascribe a certain level of personhood to our pets). The arguement being: If the procedure would be unethical to do to a child why would it be ethical to do that same procedure to an animal?
The answer is we, society, do not assign full personhood to pets. And so the ethics of how we treat them is different.
Though this has changed rapidly over the last 50 years or so and the relative amount of personhood we ascribe to animals has increased significantly. I suspect it will continue to evolve.
I can share some outcomes of their mauling on little children and the elderly if you would like.
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...
DNA tests exist for dogs now, same like humans, and can unambiguously find if a dog is a pitbull mix.
One of the first conversations I had with my vet was about when I could start running with my dog. There's a lot of conversation online about how you need to wait until growth plates fuse to avoid future health issues (or similar variations on the same theme).
Her response was, to paraphrase:
> This is all just folk wisdom. There's no proper scientific evidence to support that conclusion, and it doesn't make sense to me. What distance are you running? Do you think a wolf could run that distance at your dog's age? You know your dog, just pay attention to her; play it by ear, don't take it too hard, take it easier on harder surfaces like concrete, and get her used to running before pushing hard.
When she said that, something really clicked in my head. We're finally, finally starting to talk more about evidenced-based medicine when it comes to humans, but when it comes to animals... The plain fact of the matter is that much of veterinary medicine is really just our best guess at things. All of the problems that human medical research have are magnified substantially in the veterinary world, even if just because of how much more resource-constrained it is.
I'm having a really tough time coming up with hard numbers here -- I can't find anything at all from the US -- but I found a UK report from about a decade ago [1] that, adjusting for inflation and currency conversion, suggests that $230mm USD was spent in the UK on all veterinary research, with a heavy emphasis on agriculture over pets (extremely unsurprising!). Meanwhile, about $3bb USD was spent on human medical research [2], with about $866mm USD spent for cancer research alone[3].
Think about how many conflicting studies we hear about cancer risk in humans. Now imagine how much worse it would be with less than 1/10 the budget. And again, most of veterinary research is specific to agriculture, not pets, so now imagine how much more worse it would be if most of that research money was spent on treating other species in completely different environments, with no interest in how it relates to humans.
So again: veterinary medicine is a scientific field, and part of your vet's job is to keep abreast of the literature, and they can almost certainly do a better job of it than you or I. But if you've ever been hit by the thought "man, there is just soooo much we do not understand about human biology" or caught yourself saying "anecdata isn't the same as medical research"... when it comes to veterinary medicine, the situation is much, much worse.
[1] https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/publications/veterina...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/298897/united-kingdom-uk...
[3] https://www.stroke.org.uk/sites/default/files/sa-research_sp...
I don't feel like digging through PubMed to back up an assertion like "unneutered dogs are more likely to roam and get hit by car." At best I'll be able to give you a records-review type of study and it's a low quality of evidence. Also, trends don't mean that your specific animal is going to be the same. I work with an unneutered labrador patient who is never going to get hit by a car, and I have definitely treated neutered ones who have. This association, though, does have a basis in animal behavior and is familiar to vets who work in emergency rooms.
The level of evidence that suggests that neutering is positively associated with cancer is extremely poor. Yet, there are people running with it like it's 100%. Meanwhile, we have stronger evidence that spaying prevents mammary cancer and castration prevents testicular cancer.
Good on you for jogging with your dog. Be mindful of their limits, because they will hide pain. Keep them in athletic trim and you should be fine, in my opinion.
A retrospective study would be easier. Based on a survey of a given vets files (not quite a random sample, but for this case it might be good enough to establish a bias in facts), could trace the incidence rate of 'yard escape injuries' between 'intact' and neutered males, as well as 'intact' and spayed females.
I think males are biologically programed to stay in heat way longer than females, at least until the first baby is born, just that modern society has figured how to tame us by placing us in a financial rat race where it all about chasing material things, hobbies and lifestyles or the next big career rather than the next potential partner.
As a kid I never really understood the point Fight Club was trying to make but as an adult, I do now.
You can always get a turtle, a fish a hamster, guinea pig etc and no one will even know you have one and you can enjoy their company just as much as a dog. Lookup YouTube to find evidence of how fun small animals can be.
Not what I said and not the point (or not the point I was making -- it was a tangent from the main thread). However they might personally feel about it, landlords _have_ a lot of power. Some of them use that power to break the law without consequence, presumably when it's financially beneficial.
To the rest of your comment, it seems you're conflating service animals (well trained, won't bark all day and night, legally protected, still sometimes banned by unscrupulous landlords) with emotional support animals (undefined training, might bark all day and night, minimal legal protections, often banned even by scrupulous landlords). Is that accurate, or is there something more to your comment that I'm missing?
Its about someone having a loud dog that can't stop barking at night and then when anyone tries to talk to them about it they just claim that the other party are animal haters and like to enforce illegal clauses.
I think my personal biggest complaint about the overwhelming prevalence of desexing in the US is that we're not really being honest with ourselves about why we're doing it. I would argue, based on my experience, (I realize the hypocrisy in using sociological anecdata immediately after complaining about medical anecdata), the vast majority of pet owners who desex their dogs do so out of convenience, and the vast majority of policy encouragements for it (eg: shelters requiring it or cities assessing 10x licensing fees for intact dogs) are done because most US dog owners aren't responsible enough to prevent unwanted pregnancies and have a horrible habit of abandoning unwanted litters. That's not to say that there aren't medical reasons; some of them are even on really solid footing (eg using spaying as a way to stop frequent painful false pregnancies), but I don't think most US dog owners are even aware of that being a thing, much less making medical decisions in response to it.
I think we are starting to see a discussion of sterilization vs desexing, which is great, but even so, as it stands today, spay/neuter is standard practice in the US. I almost never see an acknowledgement that, particularly for females, we've more or less mandated a very substantial, very invasive medical procedure, mostly just because dog owners in the US just don't want to deal with a particular part of canine biology. And I personally think that raises ethical concerns around treatment of animals.
Also, thanks! She's an almost-90-pound ridgeback, so... running is one of the few things keeping us (relatively) sane!
Which reminds me of this Far Side cartoon: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/251990541629282256/
Many of those videos show strong adults, sometimes multiple of them, and they can't overtake a single angry pitbull even when using blunt objects to hit it. Multiple children get mauled and killed by pitbulls every single month in the US alone. From the reported data, pitbulls are statistically more dangerous than any other breed.
An angry small dog can only do so much harm before getting a single kick, vs a pitbull. That's why the UK banned them.
I had a bluetick / border collie hound that had the same oblivious reaction to pain; she got tangled in an electric fence once and chewed the wire through before i realized what was happening. Then went on to catch her rabbit.
Says Pit Bulls are responsible for 69% of the fatalities (not just of all attacks).
https://adbadog.com/truth-behind-dogsbite-org/
Personally I prefer the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Dog Breeders Association to a single biased source that is basically the qanon of breed specific legislation.
The only reason that I have slightly more respect for dogsbite is at least dogs actually have teeth whereas the pizza place in fact did not have a basement.
They have immensely powerful jaws, but are no more likely to use them than any other breed. There is an unfortunate increase in damage per instance but this again is no fault of the breed.
Can a poodle kill you? In some edge cases maybe. Can a pit bull do it? For sure.
This is correlated with lower rates of spay / neuter as well. So you have an animal that is naturally MUCH more dangerous, and then you have that correlated with folks who LIKE that they are so dangerous and the bad outcomes multiply.
Want a poodle? Here you go. Want a pit bull? You should have to prove you are going to be able to train, care, etc for them and will keep them on leash in situations where they could kill others (ie, children's playground - yes - people bring off leash pitbulls occasionally - NOT a good situation).
BTW - same rule should apply to guns. Want a .50 cal automatic machine gun? You should need some kind of extra license given the danger you now pose.
I don't think 'fault' is really the point -- the question is whether they are more dangerous. The 'unfortunate increase in damage per instance' is a euphemistic way of saying that yes, they are.
"For some reason"... there is no mystery here: trashy people are drawn to the premise of dog fighting.
If I don't provide a source (because apparently qualified PhD expert interviews on national TV aren't a "source"), you mock me for not having provided one.
When I provide a written one which has citations from government agencies and hospitals, you just say "That source can say anything it wants".
Why don't you get a pit bull yourself, preferably one that has been in a half dozen homes and gotten back to the shelter because it killed several pets and injured young children, and then tell me how it feels like, if you don't end up on a YouTube video yourself first, that is.
IDK where you are, but automatic guns are very hard to buy in the U.S. You may be able to buy a pre-1986 model, but the bureaucracy is exactly as onerous as you wish it to be, as is the price tag.
Or are you confusing automatic and semi-automatic guns?
Dude! Sign me up! Where is this amazing place doling them out? And yes, I’ll jump through those hoops.
Over a 30+ year span, pit bulls were responsible for 3,397 attacks where the breed was able to be identified, nearly 7 times as many as the next most aggressive breed: https://maxlawsc.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Edited for clarity
Hell, I wouldn't even bet on a human against a properly motivated 15 pound house cat.
You better have 16+ CON!
Whether or not they're statistically more aggressive than other dogs of the same size and socialization, that's a debate that'll get me a ton of downvotes here regardless of how I answer, so I'll pass on that one.
From experience, I can spend a solid hour writing arguments and I'll get downvoted anyway by all the SJWs here who refuse to accept anything differing from they believe in.
Even if one person decides to watch any of those videos and changes their mind about getting a pitbull I'll be happy for saving a life and I don't give a damn about downvotes.
What do you do with them? Further, if it's illegal for anyone to buy them, what do you do with them?
The UK had the same problem when they banned pit bulls. Not a single dog was killed. They just disallowed people from getting new dogs, and the ones that already existed just died out of old age in their existing homes. If new dogs are found they just go to an animal shelter where they get neutered and that's it.
In some cases, like the US, unwanted (but legal) dogs go to Canada where they get new homes. Checkout YouTube for that, they all look like happy puppies.
Not a single breed-specific-legislation in the world resulted in any dogs getting killed.
What we're talking about here, is dog breed which single handedly are responsible for over 90% of fatalities and serious injuries should be neutered and not allowed to be sold to the general public. They can be in shelters, as guard dogs or used by the police or military, just not regular family homes with elderly and children who can't defend themselves.
Where did you get that gruesome idea of killing dogs from?! No one anywhere in the world has done that or even talked about it.
It is also true that many people who want a tough looking “pitbull” are terrible owners who want their dog to attack and to be aggressive as a form of personal and home defense and raise them accordingly.
I didn't really know much about pits or have any opinion until one of my buddies adopted one and it killed his two cats with him trying to pry its mouth open. I started to look into the issue after that.
Some dogs do have a very high prey drive and may see small animals / children instinctively as prey. Typically this can be socialized out at puppyhood, but for some dogs it may require constant reinforcement. If it is not addressed at puppyhood it may always be an issue and the dog just won’t be suitable to have around babies and small pets.
There are plenty of pit bull lobbies. Most of them come from no-kill background because pitbulls are the most common dogs in shelters.
There is no national register for dog bites. You can see how coronavirus tracking goes to show how much of a feat that would be. All you can do is track evidence in newspapers and in online media. Interview ER docs, plastic surgeons, etc.
The biggest part I don't like is how people are being pushed towards shelters to adopt dogs and pitbulls of unknown origin are the highest percentage of dogs available in those shelters. Whether it's their bred in nature or their nurture. I think a combination of both, but I don't think these shelters should be pushing these dogs onto families. Especially ones that have killed family pets before and are being advertised as "good with children"
Co-occurrence of potentially preventable factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009)
Objective—To examine potentially preventable factors in human dog bite–related fatalities (DBRFs) on the basis of data from sources that were more complete, verifiable, and accurate than media reports used in previous studies.
Design—Prospective case series.
Sample—256 DBRFs occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
Procedures—DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis.
Results—Major co-occurrence factors for the 256 DBRFs included
Absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%])
Incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%])
Owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%])
Compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%])
Dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%])
Owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%])
Owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%])
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Most dog bite–related fatalities were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
The source is the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association which is more reliable than one whack job living out her fantasy of being paid real money to pursue an anti pit bull crusade which began with a lie.
She was herself the victim of a dog bite which she has related several times giving different stories each time adding theatrics over time. Eventually the dog walker which had the dog on a leash lost control of her dangerous animal which dragged her, shook her, and tried to rip her throat out. The circumstances, aftermath, injuries, and other party, and even her original statement contradict this.
What actually happened is that while jogging she ran up behind the dog walker on a very narrow walk alongside a wall without giving any verbal indication of her intentions.
When she tried to go around the dog and walker she would have passed within inches of the dog startling it. The dog which had no history of aggression bit the woman on the arm twice bite and release not bite and shake, not drag through the grass, no attempted bite to the neck.
She sustained soft tissue damage to the arm fell and broke her arm in the fall.
She sued the owners home insurance collecting a substantial settlement for her own incompetence and insisting on the prompt killing of the family pet.
She then went on to make a career out of being a professional victim and duping people like yourself. She is a terrible human being and it would be great if you stopped spreading canine qanon around here and elsewhere.
1. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764790714/what-happened-to-th...
You are bringing a SINGLE case of a "professional victim" and ignoring literally the over one hundred cases in my link with videos and photos of children, elderly and adults who got KILLED by pit bulls. Are all of those hundreds of dead bodies professional victims too?
the margin for error is probably higher with a lab or golden retriever, but it's irresponsible to own any large dog without committing to proper training and socialization. any large dog can maim or kill a human if provoked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation
Please be cautious before getting a pit bull yourself or for a loved one. I don't see this discussion moving forward regardless of whatever evidence I present.
God bless, have a great holiday.
a youtube search query for a socially charged topic isn't evidence.
There are volumes of youtube search results for free energy, moon-landing hoax explanations, remote viewing, voodoo, whatever. The list goes on forever.
Right now -- this very second -- one can find videos of labradors mauling people, basset hounds mauling people, schnauzers , scottish terriers, again, the list goes on forever.
The difference? The public hasn't been shown countless scare-pieces on basset hounds & schnauzers, so it's not a topic of interest in the public mind.
Any poorly trained dog is a foot-gun.
> In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community".
> In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety".
> In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective.
In any case, I'm not sure that having a legislation can be used as a proof of anything. In some countries same-sex sexual activity is illegal and penalized. What does this prove?
Largely, responding to cultural trends among humans, and taking easy, symbolic legislative outs without supporting science.
Which proves nothing about innate traits. That pit bulls have a reputation that makes them prized with people that want to train dogs for aggressiveness (a culturalnrole in which they displaced doberman pinschers in a fairly sudden phase transition despite no change in the underlying innate traits of either breed) is not controversial.
For that matter, do you drive a car? I could show you a number of videos that demonstrate the danger of cars.
And so on. Maybe folks are down voting you because a collection of videos isn’t a good argument. Maybe they have a pitbull in their life that they love. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a closed-minded SJW. If you are open-minded yourself, you must accept that maybe they disagree with you because they don’t find your argument compelling.
I get why you are passionate about this. I understand you want to keep people safe. I am sure if we could discuss this over a beer, we could find common ground.
I have heard a good measure for physical strength required is that you should be able to carry any fully grown dog you own. If you can’t pick them up and carry them a short distance you probably do not have the physical stength to handle them.
Pets are like your children, you're responsible for keeping an eye on them always and to be accountable for what harm they cause to others, unless its truly a one-off case, which it almost never is in all the horrifying cases of dog to human attacks.
Speaking of overpowering, I used to walk a German Shepherd at a shelter many years ago. He wasn't well trained and in the beginning he used to tug at the leash with all his might. He was rather strong and not being dragged along was a good challenge for any adult human. This was despite the fact that he had only one hindleg. Eventually I taught him to walk without a leash. However, I will never forget him because he demonstrated to me how strong dogs are. It is not hard to exert control over them but if it has to be via physical means, it is not easy.
However, I should clarify, the point regarding being able to lift a dog that you own is not so that you can physically control the dog in a dominating fashion (I am of the opinion you should not try to dominate a dog as with a large or powerful dog it could end badly). It is more so that if you are walking the dog and it suddenly pulls towards a squirrel or something you are not instantly pulled off balance. Also, if the dog were to be injured that you could get the dog to your vehicle to drive to the vet.
Your point, however, is well taken. Police K-9s may only weigh 50 lbs but easily take full grown men weighing 200 lbs to the ground. No one should try to dominate a dog. That teaches them that that is how you interact with people and they will eventually do it to someone else if not you.
What YOU want to do is take this decision out of their hands based on dog attack videos on youtube and debunked information from a person you now seem to agree is a lunatic.
I'm going to need to see an actual source for your claims.
The "American Bar Association" is not a valid source about dog behavior. They're lawyers being paid to push whatever agenda gives them the most money. Not gonna comment on that one since its missing any other scientific evidence.
The 2014 American Veterinary Medical Association "literature review" is being picked and chosen from in the Wikipedia article. Quotes from the very same report that were conveniently missing from the Wikipedia article:
"While small dogs may be more aggressive their size means they are less likely to inflict serious bite injury except on vulnerable individuals"
"Certain large breeds are notably under-represented in bite statistics such as large hounds and retrievers (e.g., Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers)"
"...cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities, pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified..."
The 2013 Canadian study isn't being cited in the Wikipedia article. Instead, the citation is a link to an opinion piece that mentions the said study without giving any references to it (no links or even author or institution name). As far as I am concerned, that Canadian study is made up, unless you can find it and we discuss it. I never saw any respected author mention a scientific study and then fail to completely give any references to it, not even freshmen in university would do that.
On the other hand, this is an actual cited quote from that opinion piece that's directly linked in place of the Canadian study:
"Breed-specific laws strengthen existing dangerous dog laws by targeting some of those prime offenders."
The Dutch ban on dangerous dogs which was lifted on 2008, was more or less re-instated in 2017. Wikipedia conveniently forgot to mention that:
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2017/05/dutch-draw-up-dangerou...
Using one law that in your opinion isn't sound, as an argument against laws in general having no merit doesn't make a lot of sense either.
A law isn't a scientific proof, but at a minimum it tells a lot that a problem in society has become so prevalent to justify passing said law.
If the number of victims and complaints were so negligible, the law wouldn't have had enough momentum to pass the all of the bureaucratic barriers, including the European animal rights groups, who are far more fierce than the US ones.
To revisit the prior statement you made
>but I don't think these shelters should be pushing these dogs onto families. Especially ones that have killed family pets before and are being advertised as "good with children"
If the article is intended to support that never defended position it does not do so. In order to evaluate that a journalist or interested party would need to investigate the adoption procedure and figure out if adopting families were properly informed.
Furthermore to be clear 3.2 million dogs are adopted from shelters. I was unable to ascertain how many dogs are rescued from dog fighting rings annually but surmise it is probably measured at most in the hundreds. This is to say that something on the over of 1 dog in 10,000 is a refugee from dog fighting. The fate of a tiny number of ex fighting dogs is of almost no relevance to the overall pitbull question.
https://www.citywatchla.com/index.php/neighborhood-politics-...
In essence you were literally in the comment where you say they were caught lying the only one caught lying.
https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2018-08/g...
https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...
Scientists use statistics from hospitals. They find that 90% of brutal gruesome deaths are caused by one breed or variation of such breed, they ban that breed from being adopted.
Result? 90% less gruesome bloody murders of innocent children and elderly -> success, the law is here to stay!
Where is the "illogical" or "circular" part? I don't understand what those words have to do here.
Do you like to allow poisonous snakes and tigers to be owned by the general population without any special license and guards too?
Outside of fantasies pushed by a professional victim there isn't such proof and on net the number of people killed by dogs is about 1/10 of the number that drown in bathtubs and you could do more for the world by demanding grab bars be installed in every bathroom.
We're comparing the violent and fatal attacks of one breed of dogs with violent and fatal attacks of other dogs. How or why are you comparing that with bath-tub drowning? Might as well compare it with car accidents too.
Even if I come to entertain your train of thought, drowning in a bath tub isn't the same as watching your own four years old child's limbs get torn one after the other, and bleeding to death infront of your own eyes while being helpless against the beast (one example, hundreds more exist clicks away if you choose to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pYVPeQKDeI)
Plenty of people provided scientifically backed links in this thread of evidence that pitbulls, as commonly understood and anyone can define with their own eyes, are responsible for the majority (over 70%) of fatal and violent attacks. You've chosen to ignore all of those and provide a SINGLE case of a "professional victim", while at the same time laughing and telling us multiple anecdotes mean nothing when we gave you hundreds of videos of dead children, dead elderly and horribly wounded adults and pets, all with their full names, locations and exact circumstances proving the animal was a pitbull.
I don't even understand where is your passion coming from. By banning their adoption, those dogs won't get hurt. The existing ones will live in their homes for the duration of their natural life and the shelters won't have to resort to tricking people into adopting them (https://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Many-shelter-do...).
What's the harm to society if the US adopts the same UK regulations? Or what's the good to society by keeping these dogs around for adoption?
Me and others here for the BSL, are doing it after experiencing or hearing about horrifying experiences from these very strong dogs and what they can do to a child, elderly or even a strong adult.
Are you trying to somewhat equate this to racism or something? Because it is not. All humans adapt and become civilized and equal to one another through education and parenting regardless of race. That's not the same for animals. A snake will remain a snake, and a tiger will remain a tiger. A wolf can become a dog, but only after many many generations of select breeding. A pit-bull with violent history killing pets won't become a fluffy playful doggy just because you're smiling at it.