I wonder this for a while and I don't know where to get accurate, nonbiased info about it. Check this image out. Pit bulls are counted separately from staffordshire terriers, when in many other cases they're grouped together. And then there's the issue of the frequency of pit bull attacks people often bring up. There's so much diversity in the pit bull types I can't help but think the stats are faulty in some way.
I mean, can stats pros tell me if I'm being a retard or not? Admittedly I know very little about gauging stats but wouldn't conflating: staffordshire terriers, american pit bull terriers, american bulldogs, staffordshire bull terriers, and "pit bull mixes" in the same group skew the stats?
>By coincidence, there are about three million pit bull type dogs in North America today, representing 6% of all breeds.
>pit bull type dogs >type Again, this just makes me think people are dishonestly grouping together multiple breeds. Are there definite studies done on this or not? As you see in the OP pic, while high, when singled out from the pit bull group, the staffordshire terrier has a lot less attacks than the generic "pit bull" grouping. And this article just seems like some old bitch moralizing.
It would skew the stats a little. But the pitbull breed has been so bastsrdized (especially in the US) that most of the pitbull type dogs are a genetic mash up of each other. They all look just close enough like the other that they'll mix in others to get traits from that dog size/coat/temperament/whatever. Even the most famous pitbull in the world Hulk. These people just made $500,000 (that's not a typo) from selling this litter of dogs, and saying they're pure pitbulls. It would be impossible to get good stats if they didn't group them in together in the US. NZ likely has less breeders, and less crossing going on, so it's easier to keep truly accurate stats.
that could mean only one thing, they should learn empathy and tolerance and adopt millions more pitbuls
Xavier Adams
I don't know, this type of grouping seems really dishonest to me. They're such a difference in body structure, size and skull shape between them. To me it's as strange as calling pic related a german shepherd.
Is there a good study or a scientific article I could read on the topic?
Sorry m8, I should have read this thread more closely before responding >Is there a good study or a scientific article I could read on the topic? Not that I can think of off the top of my head. I just noticed your pic here I can tell you that not all bully breeds are included in "pitbull type" American bulldogs, Dogo, Bull terriers, and other breeds that are easily distinguished are in their own separate category. Pitbull type refers to pits, and some times American staffshire terriors. No, they wouldn't be counted the same. The last dog would fall under "mixed/unknown breed" Pitbull type refers strictly to dog who appear to be pitbulls.
Nolan Gutierrez
Could you point me to the data survey then? I don't even know why this interests me. >Pitbull type refers strictly to dog who appear to be pitbulls. Which one then, the roid beasts like and first one there or pic related?
The first two in would likely fall under pitbull type which I think they should. The roids beast is an American Bully. It's a pit that's been crossed with an English bulldog, then had more pit mix in intermittently to keep the pit look, but with the bulldogs body. They're an abomination, and people that breed them should be charged with animal cruelty. This dog would most likely fall under that category as well. >Could you point me to the data survey then? I'll see if I can find something real quick before this gets archived.
Jackson Gutierrez
North American Toddler Maulers are the niggers of dogs
Jason Bennett
This is the best thing I can find right now, I'm at work so I don't have a ton of time to be searching around. You may find a little more of what you're looking for here caninejournal.com/dog-bite-statistics/ The problem is we don't have a specific sanctioned group that does the IDing, or makes the stats. The CDC used to, but the most recent info from them I'm finding is 20 years old.
>The problem is we don't have a specific sanctioned group that does the IDing, or makes the stats. The CDC used to, but the most recent info from them I'm finding is 20 years old. Where are the commonly cited breed percentages from then? Nevermind you're working, sorry. Really appreciate the source, will check it out later.
Hudson Rogers
>go to liveleak.com >search pit bull >sort by comments wtf I hate pitbulls now
>Where are the commonly cited breed percentages from then? We don't have an official agency that does it. But we do have various individual groups that track it on their own. They get the info from police reports.
Jaxson Brown
They're the niggers of dogs
Cooper Clark
Moral of story, only manlet pit breeds allowed?
Ian Wilson
It's the same thi we go through here everyday, just with dog breeds rather than peoplekind.
