Reddit Reddit reviews Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon

We found 7 Reddit comments about Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Crafts, Hobbies & Home
Books
Animal & Pet Care
Dog Care
Dog Breeds
Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon
VINTAGE
Check price on Amazon

7 Reddit comments about Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon:

u/mrsamsa · 8 pointsr/samharris

Why is the automatic assumption here that if scientists all agree that the evidence contradicts your cherished belief then it must be because they're biased leftists who are hiding it away as "forbidden knowledge"? This is the exact same argument that the creationists made, like in Ben Stein's "Expelled" documentary but we laughed at them when they tried to say science was biased against them, why would we suddenly take your anti-scientific arguments seriously?

The problem with the pitbull myth is that it's based on incredibly weak evidence, which is summarised quite well by this study here:

>Despite human directed aggression being a serious public health issue, there has been limited systematic research into potential risk factors. Existing studies provide useful insights but many have utilised populations with inherent biases, do not have controls for comparison, or have used multiple univariable analyses with associated risk of Type 1 errors. Previous studies have investigated four population types: hospital recorded bite victims (e.g. De Keuster et al., 2006; Morgan and Palmer, 2007); clinical populations from specialist behaviour clinics (e.g. Bamberger and Houpt, 2006; Fatjo et al., 2007) or general veterinary practices (e.g. Guy et al., 2001a,b,c); temperament screening for particular populations or breeds of dogs (e.g. Ott et al., 2008; Borg et al., 2010), and surveys of dog owners (e.g. O'Sullivan et al., 2008; Hsu and Sun, 2010). Inherent biases are associated with the first three populations, and the latter may be biased depending on recruitment. For example, large breed dogs are more likely to cause injuries to children requiring hospital treatment (Overall and Love, 2001), and incidences with owned dogs have been reported to be less likely to be associated with injuries requiring medical attention than those occurring in public places (Cornelissen and Hopster, 2010). Clinical populations are likely to involve a sub-set of owners willing to invest in treatment, may be biased towards larger breed dogs where aggression is less easy to tolerate, and towards family rather than stranger directed aggression (Bamberger and Houpt, 2006). Temperament testing studies generally utilise specific populations with putatively increased risk, such as rescue centres (Bollen and Horowitz, 2008), military dogs (Haverbeke et al., 2009) or associated with legislation (Schalke et al., 2008), and hence may also not necessarily be representative of the general population. Although owner surveys may overall seem a less biased population, biases can also occur due to different methods of recruitment (Asher et al., 2011)

Basically, a lot of the data comes from dog bite statistics, which is obviously not a good source of data if our interest is in whether pitbulls are innately more aggressive or not - because, of course, such data will be swayed by things like the severity of the bite, the overall number of that breed vs other breeds, the accuracy of the victim to identify the breed, etc.

The last part there is particularly important given that the category of 'pit bull' used in clinical data on dog bites can include up to 7-10 different breeds (sometimes including breeds like the American Bulldog, which has a completely different genetic ancestral line from the American pitbull terrier, making genetic claims a little difficult!) so not only are we grouping together a number of dogs so that their overall bite rate will necessarily be higher (i.e. if we combined 6 other random breeds together then their total will drastically increase too) but people are understandably terrible at identifying what breeds are including in this diverse category called "pit bull".

So what does the evidence suggest is a predictor of aggressive behavior? [Well, factors like whether they are rescue dogs and their training experience are the main predictors (with breed explaining very little of the variance).

But let's assume that all of the evidence above is liberal claptrap. Here's an article which might be viewed as more 'balanced' as they go into detail on some of the genetic effects on aggression, and note some of the aggressive features of the pitbull. However, even these authors note that pitbull aggression appears only to be significant when looking at attacks on other animals, whereas attacks on people was within the average for all breeds.

The fact of the matter is that the higher the standard of evidence we use to judge whether pitbulls are innately aggressive, the less we find to support that claim. When we look at controlled assessments of aggression we find that pitbulls are within the normal range, when objective and neutral organisations like the AVMA review the literature they find no evidence that pitbulls are uniquely aggressive. A lot of what fuels the misconception is that pitbulls, when they bite, can do a lot of damage - as any big dog can. But if we were to successfully manage to ban pitbulls, and destroy every last one that existed, we wouldn't see a decrease in dog bites - we'd just see last decade's 'dangerous dog' come back. Which raises another question - since pitbull bites have only become noticeable in the last 20 years, what kind of genetic effect are we expecting to have occurred worldwide in that time?

And just to cut off a possible objection here, none of the above denies that genetic differences can exist between breeds. Saying "But we know X was bred for Y, how can you deny that?!" doesn't support the claim that pitbulls are: a) innately aggressive, or b) more aggressive than other breeds. Even ignoring the discussion above about "pitbull" consisting of at least 5+ breeds with different genetic histories, the fact that people wanted them to be aggressive doesn't mean that they succeeded in doing so. And looking at the current evidence, that seems to be the case. So pointing out artificial selection attempts is definitely a good reason for hypothesizing that an effect might exist - but the lack of empirical evidence for an effect means that there's no good reason for continuing to argue it on this point.

Finally, I just want to highlight this book: "Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon" which is an excellent historical analysis into the moral panic and pearl clutching over pitbulls, explaining that a lot of the myth was started because of the close association pitbulls had to minority racial groups. In other words, it seems like the rise in hysterics over pitbulls and the rejection of empirical evidence on the matter goes hand in hand with racism against the common owner of pitbulls... Effectively, just like moronic white nationalists reject evidence on crime to try to push pseudoscientific beliefs like "black people are innately more likely to commit violent crime!", there is essentially 'racism' against pitbulls by proxy.

Actually, it would be a really interesting discussion if Harris could get a scientist on to discuss the moral panic over pitbulls. It's an excellent example of how emotion has ruled policy and scientific evidence is often ignored!

u/littleEdith · 5 pointsr/pitbulls

My first suggestion would be to read some literature on the history of the breed. You’ll be her advocate, and while hopefully you won’t have to defend her breed often, you may need to at some point. Knowing their history and how they got the (absolutely unfair) reputation they have now is a great tool to have in these circumstances. I’ve very rarely had anyone blatantly disregard the breed, but even friends and family have mentioned things like the lock jaw myth to me, in which I was able to kindly educate them. Pit Bull by Bronwen Dickey is a great one. I also loved The Pit Bull Life by Deidre Franklin.

As other have said, socialize her often! The sooner they learn how to make friends with strangers and new dogs, the better.

Be prepared for allergies! We have ours on a grain-free diet after a handful of breakouts after food or treats. He used to take allergy meds, but after we switched to grain free and started wiping him down with hypoallergenic wipes after hikes and such, we have it under control without medicine.

They’re working dogs, so they need both mental and physical stimulation. Long walks help with the physical, but it’s his backpack that helps with the mental exercise too. I usually fill it with a collapsible bowl, a water bottle for him, some treats, and usually my water bottle too. Carrying things turns our walk into his job. Activity boards help with the mental exercise too!

Doggie day care is a great help in making sure they got their socialization, mental, and physical exercises. Find a good one in your area if she’s going to be alone for a while during the day (this will have to wait until she’s had all of her shots and vaccinations though!).

A trainer was also so helpful in the beginning, as others have mentioned.

Also, since they can be temperamental to weather changes/being cold, a rain coat has made going potty during a storm or the winter way more possible.

Strong toys! We like Kong, Playology, and firehose toys for ours.

Be prepared for lots of love and snuggles!! I’ve owned jack russels, Yorkies, and a corgi-mix, and none of them have been anywhere near as clingy and cuddly as my pit. As much as he loves day care, and hikes, and running around, he loves to be held or lay in my lap just as much. He’s by far the sweetest pet I’ve ever had.

She’s beautiful, by the way! I’m always so excited for new pit owners. Even though puppyhood can be hard, (r/puppy101 has guidance on that too!), pits are just so wonderful, so I’m excited for the bond you’ll share with her! 😊

u/Mbwapuppy · 4 pointsr/dogs

You might be thinking of Bronwen Dickey's Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon. It's an interesting read but gets very mixed reviews from well-informed dog folks. The author definitely has an agenda.

u/vidvis · 2 pointsr/aww

> I was under the impression that these dogs were, in general, of a meaner disposition due to selective breeding. Is that inaccurate?

This is wildly overstated imo. I highly recommend

https://www.amazon.com/Pit-Bull-Battle-over-American/dp/0345803116

TLDR: A dogs breed is not nearly the dominant factor on it's temperament that many people take it to be.

u/ChopEee · 1 pointr/dogs

Someone on here reccomened this book awhile back and it's fantastic: https://www.amazon.com/Pit-Bull-Battle-over-American/dp/0345803116/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502303525&sr=1-1&keywords=pitbull very well written and informative. It's about, not only pit bulls, but the history of dog breeds and media narratives as well, I'm really enjoying it and learning lots about dogs (mine and all) along the way. Highly recommend.

u/jwonh · 1 pointr/cursedcomments
u/randyvenable · 0 pointsr/pitbulls

https://www.amazon.com/Pit-Bull-Battle-over-American/dp/0345803116

If you have time to read this book, there is some excellent information to combat the flawed logic of breed specific bans.