Figuring out what any advocacy group is really about can be difficult. Every source of official literature is clouded by nice sounding language, engineered by PR industry terms and strategies. When trying to accurately gauge the priorities of the group, it is often much easier to observe what the people in the group are actually doing with their time.
For instance, it may shock you to know that age of autism, a group which says that vaccines are responsible for autism and other medical problems, are not "anti-vaccine". Neither is Jenny mccarthy- they all say they are pro safe vaccine, they sometimes post themselves as "watchdogs", and so on. Investigation into what Age of Autism decides to protest, and what they allow users to say on their website unchallenged, paints a very different picture of their views. The consequences of their actions is the most important consideration when investigating what the group is actually about. There are many examples of woos saying one thing and doing another.
Creationists and global warming deniers aren't anti-science, either, they will tell you. They just want "good" science, while supporting efforts that threaten scientific progress. Almost all religions claim to be instruments of peace in the world, even while initiating war against unbelievers. Holocaust deniers and 911 truthers are generally not what they claim to be, either. The double-speak concept of Orwell's 1984 is very useful when discussing irrational belief; it always rears its ugly head. There should not be a disconnect between the actions and words of any advocacy group when it comes to their fundamental message.
This is a big reason why I have been so hard on Bad Rap. Their visibility and disciples are annoying, but I am not crazy about being harsh to people who have a utilitarian goal and try to achieve it with integrity. This doesn't seem to be the case with them at all, however. Remember the facebook action alert that all the pit nutters flocked to, the one that entailed defending Jonny Justice against the mean librarian for being asked to leave? According to Bad Rap's own advice on raising pitbulls, the librarian was right. They have a not-so-crazy bit of advice on keeping a dog with such a high potential for damage, including never taking them to a dog park or an area where they will be introduced to many new dogs at once- you know, like the program at the library that the pit bull was kicked out of, the one this group protested. They have step by step instructions to introducing a pit bull to another dog in the home to ensure violence does not occur between them, and actually advocate separating the dogs when no one is home to supervise. They tell people to be understanding of the fear other people have of their dogs- they may be victims or know one, after all. It is extremely reasonable advice, but it isn't what they follow at all when the reputation of a dog is at stake. Integrity and consistency are never first priorities in woo groups, it isn't possible when there isn't any effort to verify or discover the truth. Their efforts all revolve around supporting what they have already decided. It is difficult to avoid when strong beliefs are involved. Constant vigilance is required to overcome it.
It isn't that every kind of woo has a legal cause the way pit bull advocates or anti-vaccine people do, but all are disingenuous in one specific way. They are disingenuous about the importance of evidence in general. They don't ponder what kind of evidence would be needed in order to prove their idea wrong, or how to go about finding it. They will try to tell you that evidence isn't important because they simply know they are correct for whatever reason, usually anecdotes, but will also jump at any opportunity to look scientifically credible.
Jenny Mccarthy says that she isn't concerned with the studies because she saw the difference in her son before and after the vaccine. Also, before and after some diet she claims cures autism. She also thinks that there need to be studies that meet her specifications (mainly that a person of her choosing performs them). The importance of studies in general are dependent on her feelings about the results. Alternative medicine people suffer the problem of cognitive dissonance when discussing the importance of evidence in general as well. It isn't important, and when a study may point towards a pro-alternative medicine conclusion they won't hesitate to tell you all about it. Religous people will often say that god is beyond understanding, cannot be detected by scientific means, but also feel comfortable believing studies that conclude that prayer can help situations as evidence for god's existence. It is the same way that creationists will discuss how modern science is evil for ignoring god, but also attempt to have scientific cred of their own by going on expeditions to find Noah's ark or build ridiculous "museums", publish books on how intelligent design is really actually science. It is a serious philosophical problem for anyone who is actually trying to determine the truth of the statements being made. People who are perfectly content with their cognitive dissonance don't see any problem at all.
In this same way the pit bull advocates have difficulty deciding if science can answer questions about the violence potential of their chosen breed. Studies about fatalities are turned down. As are relevant studies of animal behavior from ethologists.Yet advocates feel comfortable trotting out the ATTS temperment test as "scientific" evidence that their dogs are the best (despite the pit bull not ranking the highest or being recommended by the ATTS for comparing breeds to each other, in addition to the fact that the test hasn't been shown to be proof of any particular thing). They will talk derisively about smaller dogs who bite more often (which clashes with their hatred of "breedism" in addition to their talk about how these studies do not matter).
The increased potential for visciousness against other animals has supporting evidence, but isn't really the heart of the issue. The critical issue is the potential for damage that these dogs pose, and that other dogs typically do not. Advocates do not argue that part of the problem very often because it is so difficult to refute, there are so many real damages available for comparison and other breeds of dog simply are not typically capable of creating so much damage when they attack. When pit bull advocates start genuinely addressing that problem they will gain some credibility, but I'm not counting on it happening any time soon.
"The critical issue is the potential for damage that these dogs pose, and that other dogs typically do not."
ReplyDeleteThis is patently absurd. Any dog over a certain size has the same "potential for damage" that a "pit bull" of that same size does. That's the entire point of the anti-BSL argument. Ironically, it's a statement easily refuted by the same exact newspaper-headline-based studies that you hold up as evidence that "pit bulls" bite more often than other breeds (if they really do represent, say, 30% of bites in BFE, Oregon, then how will BSL protect us from the other 70% of dogs?). Yet when others point out the multiple examples of other breeds seriously injuring people that you dismiss them as "anecdote".
And if this is the 'critical issue', why haven't you provided any evidence for it? Most of your words are devoted to pointing out pit bull advocates who are hyperbolic, silly, or unethical - which doesn't have anything to do with the merits (or lack of) the "pit bull" breed(s) itself.
Your link to your buddy's anti-ATTS blog post shows how biased and desperate you are to only show pit bulls in a negative light. I suppose I should be glad you finally acknowledged that it exists, though.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone interested, that link she provides has quite a few ridiculous statements and straw man misdirections (I particularly like the example of the collie as a "timid" breed that is somehow discriminated against in these evaluations).
The fact remains that the ATTS has the best, most reliable (really the only) statistics we have on breed-based temperaments. Unlike all the dog attack statistics you provide, breed identification is 100% accurate by definition. It's as "scientific" as you're going to get when it comes to evaluating complex animal behaviors in a 10-minute test that covers a lot different scenarios.
No, the ATTS doesn't "prove" any particular thing, anymore than multiple examples of pit bulls being friendly family pets "proves" any particular thing. What it DOES do is refute the implied (and often baldly stated) claim by pro-BSL people that, "pit bulls are super special SCERY monster-dogs." If they were, they wouldn't be passing ATTS evaluations in the numbers that they are, they wouldn't be the popular family pet that they are, and the wouldn't have the support of so many non-crazy dog lovers like myself.
another fantastic blog post.
ReplyDelete"The critical issue is the potential for damage that these dogs pose, and that other dogs typically do not. Advocates do not argue that part of the problem very often because it is so difficult to refute, there are so many real damages available for comparison and other breeds of dog simply are not typically capable of creating so much damage when they attack. When pit bull advocates start genuinely addressing that problem they will gain some credibility."
EXACTLY! instead they stick their head in the sand and attempt to recreate the pit bulls' image into something it is not.
i was very happy to see you mention george orwell and doublespeak. the pit bull apologia's manipulation of language and attempt to rewrite history is the biggest threat. and it is eerily similar to 1984. i started recognizing the parallels to 1984 last year. it's creepy.
almost daily i see evidence of this in the media. just today there was an article in the st petersburg times that stated from 1900-1970 the pit bull was the "ideal family pet", then ugly stories of dog fighting and maulings were reported in the media and ruined his reputation. completely overlooking the fact that the pit bull has been bred for dogfighting since 1835 and documented maulings go back well over 100 years. but now they want us to believe this all started in 1970!?! i can't understand why the mainstream media isn't challenging this garbage. in fact it's just the opposite, the media can't seem to get enough!
and thank you for discussing cognitive dissonance too. that is something i have been struggling to incorporate into a blog i am working on. it was helpful.
who controls the past controls the future.
who controls the present controls the past.
If the potential for damage is the same, why are only certain types of dogs used for fighting? Criminal dog fighters would certainly have an easier time exploiting dogs that lack the reputation. Why can't a break stick be used (or need to be used) on all other comparable sized dogs, if the damage is the same? Why are fewer fatalities reported for other types of dog?
ReplyDelete" Any dog over a certain size has the same "potential for damage" that a "pit bull" of that same size does. That's the entire point of the anti-BSL argument."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's what's so hilarious. Do you want to think about that for a minute? How are you going to assert that a 35 lb. game bred pit bull poses an equal threat as a basset hound without sounding absolutely silly? I seriously doubt you can, but I can send you a link to an audio segment in which an owner brags her 30 lb pit killed a 75 pound pit.
"if they really do represent, say, 30% of bites in BFE, Oregon, then how will BSL protect us from the other 70% of dogs?"
Nutters tend to assume that if a community adopts BSL, they also drop all other dangerous and vicious dog laws. They don't. In fact, communities often bulk up all dangerous and vicious dog laws at the same time they adopt BSL. Strong dangerous and vicious dog laws work for dogs that haven't been bred specifically to commit vicious acts.
Many of the towns that have successful BSL claim that serious bite injuries go down even if the total number of bites does not. Omaha thinks its BSL is working just fine. And the only critics are pit nutters, What a surprise. Only pit nutters can't grasp the difference between a bite from a westie and a scalping from a pit bull.
"I particularly like the example of the collie as a "timid" breed that is somehow discriminated against in these evaluations"
How many links to sweet-natured, potentially timid, shy with strangers collies do you need? Because there's a boatload of them. Yes, breed standards specifically say they should not be shy. Care to guess what prompted that specific statement as opposed to, say, "a temperament correct pit bull never snaps or growls at adults or children, nor is aggressive in any way towards adults or children; does not demonstrate predatory behavior such as stalking, staring down, or aggressive chasing of people/children."?
"Unlike all the dog attack statistics you provide, breed identification is 100% accurate by definition."
Do you even know what "by definition" means? And you obviously did not read the ATTS article because if you had, you would have read the account of people willing to pass their mutt off as an apbt .
"What it DOES do is refute the implied (and often baldly stated) claim by pro-BSL people that, "pit bulls are super special SCERY monster-dogs." If they were, they wouldn't be passing ATTS evaluations in the numbers that they are"
Reading for comprehension is not the nutter's strong suit. You did not read or understand what the ATTS post. And very nice straw man stuck in there at the end considering you started out failing to refute the actual argument skeptifem was making:
"The critical issue is the potential for damage that these dogs pose, and that other dogs typically do not."
CyborgSuzy,
ReplyDeleteThe ATTS test is NOT administered to a sample of dogs that has been selected to be representative of each breed. The overall results very likely suffer fatally from self-selection bias, since individual dog owners choose whether or not to participate.
http://www.skepdic.com/selectionbias.html
The pit bull community encourages self-selection bias by encouraging people with pits likely to pass the test to take in their dogs. The pit bull communities obsession with image nearly insures that their numbers are inflated. Further, the test itself does not test for dog-directed aggression and overall is a weak instrument to accomplish what you would like.
The probability of taking your dog to the test is most likely a function of dog temperament. So, all breeds are "creamed". In the presence of self-selection bias, you would expect most breeds to score similarly (strange most breeds pass at somewhere around 80%) and the ordering of them will hold no information.
You likely feel that media, LEO, and animal control reports do not account for confounding factors (like dog treatment), and you would be correct. However, at least all dogs are potentially in the sample since any dog that attacks severely will end up with some paperwork filed (another significant positive is that the "test" is lifelong for the dog and involves many varied circumstances, not like the short ATTS test). This is not the case with the ATTS test in that an obvious filter is applied. The ATTS test does not take into account confounding factors such as dog treatment either, so it is also guilty.
Now, we have a less biased record to try to assess breeds, and that is media, animal control, and LEO reports. Do they show a breed effect? Yes, overwhelmingly so. Is there a potential for confounding? Yes, it likely has some effect. However, the apparent breed effect is so strong that it strains credulity to think it is all a result of who is drawn to these pit bull-type breeds (remember that a-holes own other breeds too, where are the large number of bites from those breeds?). Now throw in the breeds genetic history, and you see that what we observe is exactly what one would expect.
Given the information that is out there currently no rational person would choose to own this breed when there exists better alternatives.
CyborgSuzy likely does not have the will or stomach to actually read about pit bull attacks. It is obvious they are a breed apart.
ReplyDeleteIf you accept any of the following generalizations then you can make a solid case that pit bulls are a more dangerous breed.
1. pit bulls have a bite-hold-shake style of bite that is more damaging
2. pit bulls are more tenacious once engaged in a fight
3. pit bulls are more likely to be dog-aggressive, and they live in places where there are dog and dog owners who will fight a pit bull to protect their dogs.
Accept any of these 3 ideas, and you lose the argument Suzy. So, you must deny reality.
The ATTS test is a hoax and the more knowledgeable pit bull owners know it. A test which basically scores a dog higher based on it's boldness is being presented as something completely different. Pit bull fanatics like to say "pit bulls score higher on the ATTS than golden retrievers" but how many golden retrievers have ever killed their owners?
ReplyDeletei'm now convinced that suzanne wears her blog roll like the 20 nothing punks wear tattoos and pit bulls, solely for the purpose of impressing others.
ReplyDeletethe fact that suzanne fails to recognize the serious flaws in the ATTS and still believes it to be a valid measurement of canine temperament after reading my expose of it, clearly indicates that you have not read past the first paragraph (that happens a lot with nutters) or that you lack higher reasoning faculties or that you are part of the misinformation campaign.
it is not MY conclusion that collies and other breeds fail because of timidity. it is the conclusion of the president of the ATTS:
According to Herkstroeter, “Just because a certain percentage of dogs in a certain breed fail, this does not necessarily indicate aggression. Dogs fail for other reasons, such as strong avoidance. If you look at our statistics just from a perspective of aggression or non-aggression, they can be very misleading.” Herkstroeter states that 95% of the dogs that fail, do so because they lack confidence to approach the weirdly dressed stranger or walk on the strange surface. The remaining 5% fail because they take longer than 45 seconds to recover from the gunshot or the umbrella.
you can read the entire excerpt of Herkstroeter here
as Patrick Burns would say, "suzanne, you are a time waster."
CyborgSuzy wrote....
ReplyDelete"This is patently absurd. Any dog over a certain size has the same "potential for damage" that a "pit bull" of that same size does."
This is not true. Are you calling the dogmen who created the breed incompetent? What were they selectively breeding for over those many generations? They wanted a devastating bite style and gameness, among other things.
Peruse various accounts of attacks and find me a labrador retriever that bursts into homes to fight, jumps out windows to fight, is beaten by hammers and continues to fight, etc.
Suzy, are you aware that the ATTS is a breed specific test? Pit bulls rated against a breed specific standard do not pass ATTS with any stunning success. Are you aware that the test was never designed to certify any dog safe in the community? The test does not measure anything, it is a pleasant way to spend the day outside with your dog, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware that a death by mauling, with hundreds of bites noted at autopsy is counted as one statistical bite, just as a single nip by a Yorkie is one statistical bite? The other 70% of the dogs are bite and retreat dogs, pit bull attacks change lives, or end them. Please provide links to mauling deaths by Beagles, or Poodles, or Irish Setters.
What is a "super special SCERY monster-dog."
BadRap is now engaging in consumer fraud and plotting campaigns to directly lie and deceive. (Best Friends, run by Saul Berkey's Animal Farm Foundation shill Ledy VanKavage, is using this same campaign to lie and commit consumer fraud.) This is Orwell's doublespeak come to life, and funded by the wealthy Jane Saul Berkey to make fools out of the weak minded and easily exploited.
ReplyDeletehttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ddv-jEfBN7UJ:badrap-blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/ins-and-outs-of-language-for-2011.html+badrap+pitbulls+cyber+smacked&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
The wealthy Berkey is perfectly happy to let the cyborgsuzys of the world destroy their lives and futures to help Berkey's fighting breed exploiters. Berkey is playing with them.
This is what it is like when the rich exploit the poor and stupid. The rich can also buy the media attention as advertising for their lies.
Notice in that BadRap Goebbels propaganda article how the only one in the comments that makes sense is the breeder who knows exactly what will happen when rich, selfish people tell lies and play games with fighting breeds for the pleasure of dominating and controlling.
Berkey will let the responsible breeders get hit as well, for her entertainment.
April 29, it's inaccurate to call the ATTS test "breed specific". If you must, it would be more accurate to call it "individual specific" in that each dog's training is taken into account as much as breed.
ReplyDeleteTaking certain breed traits and/or training into account when evaluating a dog doesn't make it useless as you all keep saying. "Unprovoked aggression" (which, according to you is something we should expect from "pit bulls") would still fail an AmStaff. Yet a large percentage of those who participate pass. Whining about self-selection bias doesn't change that fact. It also doesn't change the fact that somehow they managed to find over 500 AmStaffs that passed the test. Did they magically find the only "good" pits (and owners) in the entire continent? You likely won't see any dog-fighters bringing their dog to the test, but you also don't see dog fighters registering their dogs with the AKC, either. If nothing else, there're are at least 500 pit bulls out there that don't deserve to be harassed or killed using taxpayer money.
Craven, why should I take your word as a breed expert if you keep insisting that "timidity" is a collie breed trait?
ReplyDelete"Nutters tend to assume that if a community adopts BSL, they also drop all other dangerous and vicious dog laws."
ReplyDeleteUm, no assumptions needed. We have plenty of real-life examples where enacting BSL has drained the limited animal control time/funds of a community so they can't enforce their other laws. If a "pit bull" is dangerous, it ALREADY falls under existing dangerous dog laws. Why kill or harass family pets that haven't shown aggression? Most communities already have a hard enough time enforcing what they have (which is usually easy-to-identify dangerous behavior, not difficult-to-identify, often impossible to prove, and lawsuit-prone breed-based enforcement)?
"pit bulls have a bite-hold-shake style of bite that is more damaging"
ReplyDeleteBite-hold-shake is an instinct all dogs have (and just about every predator). Terriers, lurchers and other hunting breeds might be more likely to have it as a recognizable breed trait, but its debatable, especially in non-working strains of any of these breeds. "More damaging" is BS and completely unprovable. Labradors have the same jaw muscles that pit bulls have.
"pit bulls are more tenacious..."
Definitely a breed trait that most AmStaff owners and breeders would agree on. All terriers tend to have this trait. It's not unique, and working strains tend to have it more strongly (according to Pat Burns among others).
"pit bulls are more likely to be dog-aggressive..."
Change that to "dog reactive" and you'd be more accurate. This is debated among breed groups, but it's probably OK as a general rule.
Doesn't prove your point about "pit bulls" being especially aggressive to people. Dog trainers have a million tricks for owners to safely manage dog reactivity. (My own dog is dog-reactive, yet with a little work I've brought two foster dogs at once to share her home without any bloodshed. Oh. Sorry, I forgot you hate hearing about experience, I mean anecdote).
"...and they live in places where there are dog and dog owners who will fight a pit bull to protect their dogs."
Huh? If leash laws are being enforced, there should be no conflict in the first place. Diverting funds to harass or kill well-behaved family pets wouldn't help that.
Suzy said...
ReplyDelete"Yet a large percentage of those who participate pass. Whining about self-selection bias doesn't change that fact."
Suzy, you obviously still CANNOT wrap your head around what self-selection bias is and how it influence results. Alternatively, you have hyped the ATTS before and it seems you are absolutely incapable of admitting to being wrong or defeated in an argument.
I feel like I am playing pigeon chess here.
Let me give you a toy example. It is a bit "crude" but I resort to this example because it practically beats a person over the head with the concept. It seems warranted here.
Let's say we found a disease that is believed to decrease the average penis size in men. Note that it decreases the average size but there is still a distribution around this mean. We put out a general call for men of various disease condition to come in and get measured. The probability of a man volunteering for this is directly related to his size (obviously). You get a sample. You take the average and the mean for both groups is 8 inches. You have just proved absolutely nothing with the analysis.
Suzy said...
ReplyDelete"Bite-hold-shake is an instinct all dogs have (and just about every predator)."
Sure, to a degree. What you are doing here is putting your heel in a door, getting someone to admit something obvious and trivial while ignoring the actual issue. So, yeah I agree that nearly all dogs will grab a toy and shake it about.
The important variable is the duration, power, and tenacity of the bite-hold-shake. The vast majority of non-pit bulls of a similar size can be dissuade from an attack by a firm kick, a scream, or a few punches. They do not want to hold onto something while a 180 lbs grown man wails on them full force.
Suzy, you must develop a stomach to actually read newspaper accounts of pit bull attacks. They are a breed apart. There is no rock solid proof certified by the Supreme Court, and no one is likely to spend a cool half million or so to study this. So, I can safely say that you might possibly go your whole life insisting on some mega-study while all the while sufficient evidence is taped to the end of your nose.
Suzy said...
ReplyDelete""pit bulls are more tenacious..."
Definitely a breed trait that most AmStaff owners and breeders would agree on. "
"pit bulls are more likely to be dog-aggressive..."
Change that to "dog reactive" and you'd be more accurate. This is debated among breed groups, but it's probably OK as a general rule."
Despite, your wordsmithing of changing dog-aggressive to dog reactive you have just admitted to defeat in the debate.
If you admit either of those things, you can build a concise argument that pit bulls are more likely to be dangerous if either is present in them.
Suzy said...
ReplyDelete"My own dog is dog-reactive, yet with a little work I've brought two foster dogs at once to share her home without any bloodshed. Oh. Sorry, I forgot you hate hearing about experience, I mean anecdote"
Owning a dog who is "dog-reactive" is irrational to begin with especially if you are bringing in foster dogs. All you prove is that you got lucky or had to jump through hoops to not fall victim to previous poor choices.
Were you crating and rotating by any chance?
Suzy said...
ReplyDelete"Huh? If leash laws are being enforced, there should be no conflict in the first place. "
I will let the parent of a mauling victim, Anthony Solesky, answer you better than I could.
"When man manufactures anything, in this instance a dog breed, where the only barrier between safety and death is that imperfect humans must handle them perfectly, one has a defective product with a forgone result, not a "freak accident.""
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2011/01/parent-of-mauling-victim-responds-to.html
I will add that your (mostly implied) argument is of the basic form: "A can usually prevent B. B is influenced by C. Therefore, C is not of a concern in regards to B."
A=leash use; B=dog attack; C=being a pit bull
As I stated on your blog, google "ceteris paribus".
CyborgSuzy, you seem to be unable to reason or respond to any of the points made here, but simply throw out inflammatory and outrageous phrases like "diverting funds to harass or kill well behaved family pets..".
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you could possibly be referring to with that phrase. The only instance that comes to mind where well-behaved family pets are being harassed or killed is when they are ripped apart by pit bulls. There have been several instances in the news the past few months of pit bulls entering someone's house to mutilate and kill the animals inside - is that what you mean? If not, please cite an actual example of what you're talking about, because it makes no sense otherwise.
Thanks -
Jake
CyborgSuzy's comments amount to:
ReplyDelete"I don't understand what self-selection bias is."
"I didn't didn't do a search for collies and timidity."
"I have wishes and dreams that when BSL is enacted animal control stops enforcing its other dangerous and vicious dog laws because then I could make a point."
"I don't know why a break stick was developed or why it is breed specific and dangerous to use on other breeds."
"I wish and hope that size doesn't matter when it comes to jaw muscles. I want to believe that pit bull and Lab attacks create equal damage, but there's no way I can prove that."
"I want to unilaterally change the phrase "dog aggression" to "dog reactive" because it sounds better to me.
"I think my anecdotal evidence is persuasive."
"I want everyone to just put their faith in me and all my fellow pit bull owners when you're walking down the street with your dog. Don't worry we all have a million tricks to keep you safe from our dogs that will maul and kill your dog if we're not competent."
Pffft!
Suzy said...
ReplyDelete"April 29, it's inaccurate to call the ATTS test "breed specific". If you must, it would be more accurate to call it "individual specific" in that each dog's training is taken into account as much as breed.
Taking certain breed traits and/or training into account when evaluating a dog doesn't make it useless as you all keep saying."
So, the ATTS test relies upon the judges to take breed and training into account for each individual dog. The farther away the test is from a form of yes/no questions with clearly defined rules for yes/no answers, then the more subjective it becomes. It seems it is nearly entirely subjective, and, even worse, the subjectivity is bound to vary among all the various evaluators.
As far as the results being useless, okay I'll bite and add the qualifier "nearly totally". So, okay the results are only nearly totally useless. They have exactly one microspeck of usefulness. THERE I SAID IT! Too bad that microspeck only applies to individual dog results and the summary results are still totally useless to compare breeds.
Suzy said...
ReplyDelete"Doesn't prove your point about "pit bulls" being especially aggressive to people."
Where did I say this? Stating that pit bulls are more dangerous to people is not the same thing.
Suzy, the ATTS IS breed specific. Groups of similar breeds are judged by the same standards. I have done this test, have the certificate, been there, done that, don't interpret this for me.
ReplyDeleteYou talk about the dogs as both pits and Amstaffs. This tells me that you fully understand that there is no difference between the breeds. Why you bring up the potential for dog fighters registering their dogs AKC is beyond me, you know that the AKC does not register pit bulls.
Pit bull owners are in love with the ATTS, they actively train for the individual parts of it. They do not bring dogs that can not pass, this is self selection.
How long has the ATTS test been in existance?
Since the 80's, I think, roughly 30 years. To have 500 Amstaffs pass in 30 years works out to an average of 16 or 17 per year "on the entire continent." Somehow I do not see this as a "wow" statistic, do you?
Sorry about taking so long to approve comments, everyone. I will try to get here once a day at a minimum from now on, or maybe turn off moderation if the comments stay this busy.
ReplyDeleteSuzy,
ReplyDeleteYou tell us that "Labradors have the same jaw muscles that pit bulls have" Yes, child they do, all dogs have the same muscles, this is a given. Do they all develop in the same manner? Nope. Has anyone ever seen a Yorkie at a flirt pole? How about a Poodle? Nope. Prance over to Youtube and see the hundreds of pit bull flirt pole videos.
Are break sticks required to end Pug attacks? Don't think I have ever seen this done.
Ice skaters and Sumo wrestlers have EXACTLY THE SAME MUSCLES but do they look alike? Nope. Can they do the same things? Nope. Another poorly thought out argument.
From Craven's excellent link...
ReplyDelete" “I’ve tested over 8000 dogs,” adds
Herkstroeter. “I’ve had a half dozen or less fail at the ‘friendly stranger’ stage. Three or four of these avoided the
friendly stranger and two or three showed aggression.”"
Hmm...given that in a random sample of 8,000 dogs many more than 6 will be aggressive on average (based upon sheer common sense and personal experience), it seems either that people with dogs of poor temperament do not take them in for this test or this test is insensitive.
I've met way fewer than 8,000 dogs, and I was attacked for no reason by a neighbor's dog last week! What are the odds given the ATTS results?
It seems that this paper was published after you wrote this series of posts and it didnt seem to be addressed in the comments so I was wondering what your thoughts were on this recent study that found “dogs classified as dangerous do not seem to be more aggressive than the rest.”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/new-study-finds-banned-breeds-no-more-aggressive-than-any-others/
The main thing that drew a little skepticism from me was that the study seems to be based on reporting by the owners rather than direct observation so reporting bias could creep in.
Please note, I'm not saying "you're wrong", I'm personally kinda in the middle on the issue, I accept the idea of genetically driven behavioral differences but am not convinced that current or proposed breed specific legislation is the way to handle it.
Please be aware that the National Canine Research Council, despite the absolutely kick ass name, is not a Council and no real "research" is done. Karen Delise gives her opinion, not research. The name was sold to the Animal Farm Foundation, owned by super wealthy Jane Saul Berkey, a pit bull advocate with enough money to get your attention. Please google the Animal Farm Foundation to get the full effect, nothing unbiased can come from such a blatant advocacy organization.
ReplyDeleteThank you Anonymous, while your comment was informative what I posted from the NCRC was not an opinion piece, its was an actual piece of research, though you are correct that the NCRC did not perform the research. The study was only REPORTED on by the NCRC, the study itself was perform in Spain and published in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior. While it great to always be skeptical Im not sure we can dismiss the study based on the reputation of the AFF or NCRC alone(genetic fallacy?).
ReplyDeleteskepticalvegan,
ReplyDeleteIf you read the part where pit bulls are compared to other breeds, you will find the data collection was via anonymous internet questionnaires that a respondent could take multiple times and also lie on. Therefore, it holds no information.
I saw that it was "based on reporting by the owners rather than direct observation so reporting bias could creep in" but I didn't see the part about being able to take it multiple times as well, ect. Thanks DubV, that more the kinda info I was looking for.
ReplyDeleteHey Skeptifem, I was wondering if you had thoughts you could share regarding the content of the latest Skeptoid episode titled Pit Bull Attack!
ReplyDeletehttp://skeptoid.com/episodes/4288