Perhaps the most horrifying story to hear on the news is a case of a child being killed by a pack of dogs, hardly anything can incite a more emotional response. We’re quick to vilify the dogs; perhaps justifiably so, perhaps not. In the United States, it seems that more often than not, the dogs involved in such attacks are pit bulls. Legislation is quick to address highly emotional issues, and many states now have various bans and limitations on pit bulls. Today we’re going to turn our skeptical eye onto the popular belief that pit bulls are truly as dangerous as their reputation suggests.
Fully-sourced, concise, neutral-standpoint investigation claims of pit bulls as a “dangerous breed”.
Excellent take on the REAL science related to dangerous dog legislation.
(spoiler alert: don’t mess with Chow Chows, owner and environment affect way more than breed, and neuter your damn dog)
Historically, dogs have been a partner to humankind far more than a simple house-pet or decorative “accessory”, as some have become today. But even when dogs were kept by humans and expected to attack on sight (for example, out on the frontier, protective and aggressive dogs were essential to protecting both herd and home for many people), there were some dogs that were considered to be “too dangerous” for “city life”.
Among the dogs considered to be inappropriate in Victorian London, the large molossian type (bulldogs, mastiffs, and other heavy-built defenders) was considered almost taboo in many circles. Ironically, the posh and fashionable French Bulldog (Frenchie), which is naturally fairly defensive of its owner (tending to bite others), was developed from the molossian type, and is considered to be significantly more aggressive than the larger breeds, such as Mastiffs.