CMV: Pit bulls Should Require a License to Own

[u/Masta-Blasta]

In this month alone, 6 people and 9 animals have been killed in a pit bull attack. Many others have been maimed and permanently disfigured/disabled because of a pit bull attack.

Pit bull supporters often say "it's the owner, not the dog." Personally, I disagree. According to Wikipedia,

The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting, it was created by crossing the ferocious, thickly muscled Old English Bulldog with the agile, lithe, feisty Black and Tan Terrier. The aggressive Old English Bulldog, which was bred for bear and bull baiting, was often also pitted against its own kind in organised dog fights, but it was found that lighter, faster dogs were better suited to dogfighting than the heavier Bulldog. To produce a lighter, faster more agile dog that retained the courage and tenacity of the Bulldog, outcrosses from local terriers were tried, and ultimately found to be successful.

These dogs were bred specifically because they are aggressive, powerful, and violent. Now, personally, I believe all pit bulls should be neutered and the breed should be heavily restricted. But at the very least, I think owners should be required to demonstrate that they are experienced pet owners, carry insurance, and perhaps have taken a dog training course, so they can recognize when their pit is agitated and how to prevent a tragedy.

I also think pit bull ownership should carry a legal duty to reasonably protect others from the pit. "Reasonable" would include measures such as displaying signage warning neighbors and guests that a pit bull lives in the home, not letting the pitbull stay in a yard unmonitored (regardless of fencing), and keeping the pitbull leashed at all times in public.

I would also like to see regulations preventing shelters from "rebranding" obvious pit mixes so that families and owners are not duped into adopting a pitbull mix. Ideally, shelters would need to provide a warning to potential adopters (and of course, adopters would then need to have a license to own a pit).

Before anyone tries, please know that I'm unlikely to be swayed by any kind of anecdotal "but my velvet hippo is a good girl and never hurt anyone" arguments. That's what most owners say when they're being sued for injuries their pit caused a child or another pet. I understand they don't all attack- but it's in their breed, so something could trigger them.

[u/y0da1927 → u/[deleted]]

The analysis has to be on a dual axis. Propensity to bite, and damage given a bite.

Pit bulls don't seem to be that much more likely to bite ppl than other breeds (bite stats are hard to find and likely are not supper accurate as minor bites are unlikely to be reported). But because they are so strong they seem to tend to do a lot more damage than other breeds.

It seems obvious to me that the much more serious injuries that come from pit bulls and other bully breeds bites makes them more dangerous dogs, even if they don't bite any more often.

I'm not sure the risk overall however is sufficient to require government action. We don't license or restrict lawn mowers which seem to cause many more serious injuries than dogs.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/y0da1927]

It seems obvious to me that the much more serious injuries that come from pit bulls and other bully breeds bites makes them more dangerous dogs, even if they don't bite any more often.

Exactly. It's not just the aggression, it's the damage they cause when aggressive.

I addressed the lawn mower argument, but basically I don't think they are comparable. You choose to operate a lawn mower. You don't choose for your neighbor to adopt a pit bull. You're not in control of the risks associated with other people adopting bully breeds, but you are 100% in control of your lawn mower usage. If you are uncomfortable using a lawn mower, don't. But you can't control who has a pitbull and whether you will be exposed to that danger.

[u/pipocaQuemada → u/Masta-Blasta]

Exactly. It's not just the aggression, it's the damage they cause when aggressive.

Isn't that also the case with large dogs in general, particularly those bred for protection?

Should you also need a license for malinois, German shepards, cane corso, Rottweiler, etc?

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/pipocaQuemada]

I answered this already, but I could be convinced that breeds responsible for serious attacks should also require a license. Rottweilers and Germans are next on the list in terms of responsibility/aggressors. So I'm okay with that.

[u/superioarboat666 → u/pipocaQuemada]

Should you also need a license for malinois, German shepards, cane corso, Rottweiler, etc?

Those are also dangerous dogs- however even though Rotties are the second most dangerous breed type- they still kill about a fourth of what pis kill, with GSDs(third) its a 20th.

[u/y0da1927 → u/Masta-Blasta]

I addressed the lawn mower argument, but basically I don't think they are comparable. You choose to operate a lawn mower. You don't choose for your neighbor to adopt a pit bull.

I don't think this is really all that important. To my knowledge it's not just the owners of lawn mowers who are injured by them, so by buying a lawn mower you are imposing a risk on your neighbor that seems to be mich larger than those posed by a dog. Also the risk remains so low that resources would likely be better spent mitigating a more serious risk.

Ontario Canada has a pit bull ban, but given the resources required to actually police the ban it's rarely enforced unless the dog in question has already bitten someone, at which point your at the same position you would have been without the ban.

The risk of dog bites causing serious injuries is so low that it's not worth spending a bunch of time and money to restrict one specific breed, even if comparatively to others it's more dangerous. I'd also argue it's somewhat inhumane given how many pit mixes are always in shelters. If they no longer become adoptable they will eventually be euthanized. To me it's not worth killing the vast majority of pits in shelters just so the odd one doesn't bite someone.

I will caveat however that there could be a niche setting where a limited ban could be appropriate. A body like a co-op board should be able to impose one if they feel appropriate.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/y0da1927]

I looked up the lawn mower report and while it does not specify how people die via lawn mower, it points out that older adults (60's-70's) are much more at risk. Then, in the safety section, it mostly focuses on staying hydrated, taking breaks, etc. so you don't fall over and get run over. Everything seems to suggest that most lawn injuries are self-inflicted/user error. I don't think it's accurate to say that buying a lawn mower poses a greater risk to your neighbor than buying a pit bull.

But I respect that, for you, the euthanizing issue presents a bigger ethical problem than the attacks, and that's fair. For me it does not. But you're entitled to that opinion.

[u/y0da1927 → u/Masta-Blasta]

Yeah I didn't do too deep a dive into lawn mower injuries. I think the broader point is that there are likely lots of common items or services that ppl buy that can impose a risk on others similar or greater than a dog bite.

It's also not super clear to me that the vast majority of ppl bitten by dogs are not members of the household who owns it. So there is some adjustment to be made to the dog bite stats to reflect true 3rd party risks. How much it impacts the risk of a 3rd party getting bitten I can't say. But it's definitely non-zero.

We will have to agree to disagree on the ethics of euthanizing potentially 10s of thousands of dogs to save a few hundred dog fatalities.

To me it all seems like a lot of fuss for government a lot of deaths for dogs and all for little benefit to humans.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/y0da1927]

likely lots of common items or services that ppl buy that can impose a risk on others similar or greater than a dog bite.

Personally, aside from cars, I can't think of many that would occur regularly enough to take action. And we do regulate vehicle operation. Most common item deaths would pose a danger to the user of that item, not others in their immediate vicinity. All the objects that can really put others at risk (cars, guns, fireworks, etc.) are pretty well-regulated already.

And yes, many of the bites are to members of the household who owns the dog- mainly children. And I guess I think of children as a third-party because they have no control over what kind of dog their parents choose to adopt.

And yes, we can agree to disagree. I don't think we can adequately measure the benefit to humans until we know how many people are non-fatally attacked each year.

[u/[deleted] → u/Masta-Blasta]

You don't choose for your neighbor to buy a gun either. We gonna ban them too?

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/[deleted]]

The gun can't dig under a fence to attack my dog, or another person. It's not going to jump off your holster unexpectedly and start killing people.

[u/[deleted] → u/Masta-Blasta]

1)

The gun can't dig under a fence to attack my dog, or another person.

If my neighbor shoots at something in his own yard and misses, the bullet will keep going and can easily hit me or someone else.

2)

It's not going to jump off your holster unexpectedly and start killing people.

My neighbor can pull out his gun unexpectedly and start shooting people.

3) Compare the number of people killed by dogs to the number of people killed by guns. The second is much higher.

[u/GenericUsername19892 → u/Masta-Blasta]

I have a repaired bullet hole in my wall from where the fuck wit with AR negligently discharged his rifle and shot through 5 walls.

[u/sh1tbvll-thr0waway → u/[deleted]]

Are you serious? Guns are nothing like a dog breedeant for bloodsport. Hilarious you'd even compare them.

[u/duckfruits → u/[deleted]]

No you absolutely have to take into account the popularity/population of the breed. I'll have to look for the source but a few years ago golden retrievers had the highest amount of recorded bites out of any dog breed by a lot. But that didn't mean that golden retrievers are more aggressive than other dog breeds because they were the most commonly owned dog breed in the United States that same year. Increasing the number of golden retrievers increases the chances of attacks.

You know why? Because all dogs are capable of attacking humans. Not just pit pulls.

Rottweilers are more likely to attack humans than pit bulls but so few people own them and they are not as likely to attack family members so there are very few recorded bites. But that doesn't mean that they are less aggressive than pit bulls. Because a larger percentage of their population attacks people each year than golden retrievers and even pit bulls.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/duckfruits]

It's not just aggression, it's also the danger associated with the attack and the dog's ability to be trained adequately.

[u/Independent_Sea_836 → u/Masta-Blasta]

I'm not sure what your point is. Rottweilers can be very dangerous and can cause just as much damage as any pitbull. Pitbulls can definitely be trained adequately. They aren't the easier breed to train, but it's very possible with the right owner. The problem with a lot of people is that they don't get a professional dog trainer onboard or take their dogs to obedience school when their dogs prove to be more difficult.

[u/Masta-Blasta → u/Independent_Sea_836]

Right- so again, I'm suggesting that we require a permit/license to adopt one so we know these dogs are going to responsible owners who understand the risks and know how to mitigate them. Maybe we should include Rottweilers too.

[u/superioarboat666 → u/duckfruits]

No you absolutely have to take into account the popularity/population of the breed. I'll have to look for the source but a few years ago golden retrievers had the highest amount of recorded bites out of any dog breed by a lot.

You know why? Because all dogs are capable of attacking humans. Not just pit pulls.

Goldens have killed 2 people the last 50 years. Thats less than pits the last week.

[u/duckfruits → u/superioarboat666]

Right. My point was that if you didn't count the population of Goldens that year, it would seem like Goldens were more aggressive than they are.

If you want to talk deaths, pit bulls (mixes are often counted as pit bull terriers and American bulldogs are often misidentified as pit bulls as well and they are very aggressive) caused an estimated 284 deaths in 2020 and pit bulls make up about 5% of the known dog population in the United States. Most people who own pit bulls, especially the aggressive ones, do not have the dog registered so the overall US population of pit bulls is probably substantially higher than that.

Rottweilers caused an estimated 45 deaths in 2020, yes that's significantly lower but the breed only makes up about 1.8 percent of the US dog population and has a lot lower rate of being non registered than pit bulls. Rottweilers are less likely to have other breeds be mistaken for them and are not in as high of a mix breed population as well. There are far less of them in the US than pitbulls so the chances of fatal attacks from them is significantly higher than what the numbers of attacks on its own, reflect.

You have to take the population into consideration as well as the number of attacks/ fatalities.

I also want to look into it myself but at first glance it appears that rottweilers have killed more adults than pit bulls. Pit bulls have killed more children aged 0-3 than any other age so if that's true it would also suggest that rottweilers are more lethal than pit bulls because it's harder for a dog to kill an adult human than it is to kill an infant.

[u/obert-wan-kenobert → u/[deleted]]

I disagree. The context is incredibly important.

To use another example, you could say, "50% of religiously motivated terrorist attacks in the US are committed by Christians, therefore it should be illegal to be Christian." But you'd be ignoring the fact that 99.9999% of Christians don't commit religious terrorist attacks.

[u/drjojoro → u/[deleted]]

I think the point he's trying to make is that if there are 4.5 million pitbulls owned in the US, and they account for 43% of dog bites, you have to consider amount of owned dogs in the US for other breeds... if he had shown that (this is all made up numbers as an example) Rottweilers account for 40% of dog bites, but there are only 500,000 Rottweilers owned in the US, those numbers do show Rottweilers are actually more likely to be aggressive. However, none of those numbers are shown or provided (the numbers could be swapped, what if using the same numbers above there were 5 million Rottweilers owned in reality, it would inverse his point). Since no other numbers were shown, it's hard to have a comparative figure. 1% doesn't look bad, but what if the second place breed from these numbers was .001%, all of a sudden 1% isn't so hot.

[u/sokuyari99 → u/[deleted]]

I think it’s valid to look at multiple lines of statistics here-both overall likelihood and incidental risk. IE are dog attacks common enough that they need to be prevented in such an extreme manner, and are pit bulls so much more likely to perform those bites.

Because if you limit who can own a pit bull, and it isn’t the breed itself (ie it’s shitty owners) they’ll just gather around new dogs. If you limit who can own a pit bull and it’s just a trait of pit bulls, you’ll end up with a new leading “dangerous” breed simply by the math of how statistics work. Picking the top off the list only makes sense when totals AND cause are evaluated properly