News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
They're not dumping 'pandemic puppies', they're dumping the pitbulls that nobody wants. Breeders for dog fighting are pumping out dogs nobody wants because they're reactive, dangerous, and have the ability to kill a human being, then maul them.
Shelters are full of them. So desperate to get rid of them, shelters underplay their aggressiveness and danger. This puts the general population at risk. The UK just passed a new set of laws against more breeds of pitbulls, and rightfully so. You can see all the evidence they used to make their decision. It's gory and sad. So many people's lives, and smaller dogs, gone forever.
It's not just for dog fighting. It's backyard breeders who are hoping to make a quick buck, so they get the easiest dogs they can access, which is almost always pits, sell the puppies for whatever they can get, and then dump any of the ones they can't sell. I see them constantly on nextdoor, and it's appalling. And the kind of people who buy pit puppies from some rando are also the kind of people who dump them when they get too big and "oh we can't keep up with their energy."
Yep, this is the answer. Tons of people are trying to cash in on dog breeding like beaniebabies. Frenchies, pitties (including XXL toadline monstrosities), random mixes (shitpoos, bernadoodles, cockadoodles, etc), etc. Breeding rights, stud fees, etc. are big business and essentially none of these "breeders" have any clue what they're doing.
In the vast majority of places in the US, there are no requirements or certifications needed to breed dogs. And now people will pay insane amounts of money for frenchies with rare coat colors, or pitbulls that are bred solely to be huge and squat with no concern about temperament or health; so irresponsible, backyard breeders who either ignore or are completely ignorant of proper breeding practice and refuse to get or can't afford proper genetic testing and medical care for their animals, are breeding for phenotypes like coat color or being insanely huge and squat and breeding in serious congenital defects and abnormalities.
Then either buyers are stuck with these shitty, genetically fucked up dogs they paid like $5k-10k for that now need thousands more in veterinary care to treat all the issues bred into the dog (not to mention parvo, parasites, heartworms, etc.). Or the breeder's little business collapses when they realize that they can't afford to continue operating their shitty puppymill due to the fact that dog breeding is expensive and their fucked up breeds can't give natural birth and so all need c-sections. But, it's usually the first one because there are no shortage of buyers willing to pay stupid amounts of money and trust the "breeders" because they assume they're experts.
So people often end up dumping the dogs when they realize they can't care for them medically or are aggressive or whatever else, while backyard breeders continue to pump out fucked up dogs for profit.
… I’m sorry but… shitpoos? That’s hilarious. Though I imagine breeders would probably use a different term. I can’t imagine saying ‘I breed shitpoos’ with a straight face.
Lol yeah I don't think they call them that (I believe they prefer "shih-poo"), but I certainly do
"Whew. Aren't you glad WE aren't man's best friend?" --Cats
Yup. It needs to be a crime punishable by fines and prison time. The average lifetime cost of owning a dog can be as high as $50,000. Use that as a baseline for fining people who breed dogs while shelters are turning them away.
I take a look at my local shelter every now and then and it’s full of pit bulls and pit mixes.
Pitbulls, pit mixes, and the occasional incredibly neurotic Chihuahua (rated the most aggressive breed when individual dog owners have been surveyed on their own dogs' behaviors).
I think there's a link to owner training for the chihuahua thing. The smaller the dog is, the less an owner is likely to train them. They don't think they have to.
If that where the reason, we would see a lot more complaints about dogs like dachshunds and pugs. Though I do think you're right that there is something specific about many people who choose to get Chihuahuas which involves them being the sort of irresponsible owner who doesn't do any training and treats it like an ornament rather than an animal.
Do you have a link to any stats? There seem to be two sides to this debate, where one side insists that these breeds are inherently aggressive and the other side insists it isn't true. I'm more inclined to believe to believe the former in my personal experience, but have always wanted something other than anecdotal to confirm.
Be mindful when reading the sources. This is a very polarizing debate, and it isn't really as clear as "pitbulls are little angelbaby velvethippos" or "pitbulls are vicious killing machines".
Pitbull is a range of phenotypes, not a breed. What we call pitbulls commonly are a mix of boxers, Am Staffs, bulldogs, american pit bull terriers, bull terriers, etc. So, we're relying on police to ID these dogs after a bite has been reported, and so a large number of aggressive individuals of a variety of breeds/mutts might get lumped into "pitbull" by cops.
Also, dog attacks are more likely to occur in lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods where dog ownership practices are often less responsible, and cops are more likely to be in the first place. Pitbull-type dogs are more likely to be owned by lower SES individuals (in part because they're so prevalent, but also due to cultural factors). So, it is likely that pitbull-type dogs are overrepresented by these statistics.
That said, it is wild that people claim that breeding does not impact behavior. Pitbulls and various bully breeds have often been bred to be aggressive and to guard territory, just like Cattle Dogs have been bred to nip at heels and keep creatures in a herd. Any cattle dog owner will tell you that their dog exhibits herding behavior even if it's never seen a cow or sheep. It's the same with some pitbulls and they happen to have one of the strongest bites of any type of dog coupled with a behavior where they latch on to the thing they've bitten and won't let go, but will continue to thrash around causing major tissue damage. Contrast that to German Shepherds, another dog that makes up a large number of dog bite cases. Their bite force is less on average than that of a pitbull and most German Shepherd bites are fear-aggression related because GSDs are extremely neurotic and anxious (also due to breeding), so GSDs tend to bite and release unless they're specifically bite trained, like for police work.
So anyway, just be aware that both sides of this debate try to put spin on it, but breed characteristics do matter, and our recordkeeping of dog breeds and bite statistics is flawed essentially due to the problems extant in law enforcement broadly.
For sure. I am not one of those people insistent on all pits being bad for the reasons you state (over-representation in statistics), but I also cannot believe that there isn't some inclination for pits to exhibit aggressive behavior. I probably will never adopt a pit, but I have a friend who owns one (or a similar breed... not quite sure) but I love that dog.
For sure! I know a few pitties, too, and they are good dogs. It's very much a "law of large numbers" type of thing. Likely more aggressive on average, but the answer is probably not breed bans and more likely restrictions on who can breed dogs (and maybe who can own certain dogs).
The problem is that if the city can't even budget enough to feed these dogs, they're certainly not going to be able to budget enforcing the breeding/ownership laws.
That is fair. Could be subsidized by the cost of breeding licenses, but the administrative burden would be greater. I feel like the breed ban administration would be difficult as well - since pitbulls aren't really a breed, what constitutes one? Is it only American Pitbull Terriers? Because most pitbulls aren't APTs, but some mix of bully breeds. Who would make that determination in each individual case? It's a tough issue all around.
This is a very well-thought and considered take. I usually sit on the side of not banning specific dog breeds as I’m yet to see compelling statistics to back up such a ban, or numbers on dog attacks where breed bans have been put in place that shows it works. Your point is very valid though that because this is such an emotional debate, people on both sides have a tendency to exaggerate their positions. I would really like to see compelling statistics one way or the other, as I feel at the moment a lot of this debate is being held in unscientific territory.
As a husky owner, I can definitely attest that different breeds have specific behavioural phenotypes associated with their breed’s genotype. My husky acts just like all of her husky friends which is pretty different to all of the other dogs we know of different breeds. I just don’t know that this factor outweighs the owner’s responsibility in raising and training them well. Even within a single breed, there’s often significant variation.
Dog ownership is honestly just so easy to fall into without being prepared, and there’s no way to ensure people will take responsibility for the life they’re buying. You’re literally just handing over money half the time, like a car or a TV.
I couldn’t handle anything with the energy of a husky or Aussie or shepherd, but if I hadn’t actively done the research and realized that, I would probably have a shepherd mix with too much energy right now. LSGs are right in the sweet spot for me with work, health and fitness level, etc.
There’s nothing stopping the average person from getting in over their head. Energy levels, space, and size are all considerations that people just handwave and “figure out later.”
For some people, life legitimately changes. Injured or sick suddenly and can’t take care of a doodle’s unrelenting energy anymore? Divorce, a death, a forced move into a smaller space, all sorts of legitimate things, but I don’t think these people’s dogs are the ones filling shelters. There’s no penalty for at-fault surrenders (rightly, to avoid more horrible options being taken), and there’s no required education to get a dog, it’s a recipe for disaster.
People aren’t going to put more thought into getting a dog than other parts of their lives, and people are constantly doing things without thinking nowadays, whether it’s car loans, buying unnecessary TVs/phones/computers, or similar. Overleveraged mentally and emotionally.
I think breeding legislation is the right move, but it would take a lot of will that’s not there and need provisions to handle oops litters and such without driving people underground.
The stats are easily manipulated by either side. The fact of the matter is that, given the number of attacks on humans and animals by pit bulls, and the average age of pits, roughly 1 in 10,000 pits will attack something in their life. This is an order of magnitude more frequent than rottweilers (the next most dangerous breed), and when a pit bull attacks, it's more likely to kill its victim than any other dog breed.
1 in 10,000 is large enough for some people to say the whole breed needs to be euthanized, it's small enough for some people to say that it's negligible, and it's at just the right spot for me to say that it should be illegal to breed them, but existing ones shouldn't be euthanized.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/
Dog Attack Statistics by Breed
Many dog advocates argue that there is no such thing as a bad breed, only a bad owner. Still, it can be helpful to understand which breeds of dogs are most commonly involved in bite incidents or acts of aggression. Dog attacks by breed statistics are invaluable both for individuals looking for a dog to adopt as well as for those who interact with animals who want to minimize risk.
The breed that commits the most attacks overall is pit bulls.
Pit bulls are involved in more dog attacks than any other breed. In fact, the American Animal Hospital Association reports this breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2% and German Shepherds were the third most dangerous breed, involved in 17.8% of bite incidents.⁶
The breed that is most likely to be involved in a fatal attack is pit bulls.
Pit bulls are both more likely to be involved in bite incidents and more likely to cause serious injury or death when a bite does occur. In fact, from 1979 to 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined pit bulls were involved in the most fatal dog attacks, accounting for 28% deaths due to dog bites during that same time period.⁷
I'll add, I like pitties. I'll also advise taking this with a grain of salt as so many mixed breed dogs fall into the pitbull umbrella.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8819838/ that still seems to find it may be more the human influence on a breed(or mixed breed dog as it were) than manifested in the breed itself.
If you were to compare the findings of the direct connection of anxiety, many smaller dogs have this but we as large humans tend to dismiss this in smaller dogs. The only reason we really focus into the pit bull is the association we’ve developed and the size. Also larger dogs are usually trained in defence. Less so with smaller dogs which also suffer with anxiety. No doubt a lot of owners get the ideal that they want to get a pit bull to install fear into other humans as a form of protection. this is a human introduction of a behavior.
Anecdotally my family owned many dogs. Sometimes we’d get a litter where two dogs behaved very differently to each other. We inherited many dogs with behavioural problems because of human error and the breed didn't make a difference so much as size definitely did amongst the decisions many people made. No one wants to keep a large dog with behavioural issues. Why people associate it with pit bulls is mainly because statistically they are more prone to treat that particular breed (and in many cases any breed that looks associated to the pit bull) in such a way that installs more anxiety. That is a human error. Not a breed error.
Are those statistics weighted against breed prevalence? Because if not, those data aren’t really telling us anything significant. If pit bulls as a breed are overrepresented statistically, that would be a significant finding. Looking at the source material for the claim here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950 doesn’t clearly state if the numbers are per capita of dog breed or if they’re just sheer numbers of attacks, regardless of prevalence of breed. Do you have a source that evaluates the statistics in such a manner?
This should be higher. I would be interested to know more about the actual numbers. A quick search also showed shelters are not good at accurately identifying breeds.
Couple of issues with this data. 1- People are much more likely to report bites from larger dogs (since they cause injury that requires medical treatment and reporting is done automatically) 2- Any stats by design are going to be correlational evidence and do not guarantee causality so it's not at all clear that rate of bites by pits are higher or just more frequently reported because they are pits or because they are so common . 3- As others have pointed out pits are more likely to be found in lower SES homes where resources for training, toys and healthy outlets for dog energy like time for long, regular walks and playtime is less readily accessible. 4-Breeds most associated with aggression are most likely to be treated by humans in ways that incite dogs' anxiety, which is a precursor to aggressive behavior.
I think that pitties are just the victim of really bad press. Once it became common knowledge that they were used in dog fighting, it became part of what everyone "knows" about pits. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy by seeing only results they expect rather than thinking about why they expected to see it in the first place.
Too many people believe whatever they want to believe.
Certainly some dogs of specific breeds are less aggressive than others but all dogs have been bred to have some sort of specific trait(s) (small, large, fluffy, "cute", fast, intelligent, etc) and some breeds were explicitly bred to be aggressive.
People want to believe certain breeds aren't inherently aggressive because it leads to exactly this type of problem.
I don't know that it's possible to quantify aggressiveness.
The solution is to heavily regulate breeding and associated sales because that's exactly what creates the surplus of animals no one wants to take care of, and its something people should consider before buying any animals at all.
You're generally right but pretty misinformed all the same.
One thing I can say is that if shelters are playing down aggressiveness etc, it's because of stupid 'no kill' laws that forces them to keep the majority of these shit dogs and not be about to euthanize them. Thank all the animal lovers on Facebook who have no comprehension of the situation, have no interest in helping the dog themselves but they'll sure as fuck tell anyone what they think if they don't take care of the dog.
It's a perpetual cycle, lifestyles of the poor and dumb.
The shelters that do kill dogs don't just kill aggressive dogs though, they kill dogs they think nobody will want too. My boss has the most beautiful dog I've ever seen but he's deaf so you have to communicate with him through hand movements. Before she got him the shelter was going to kill him in a few weeks. This wasn't a Pit or any other dog some people think are inherently aggressive
The thought that they would have killed this dog if my boss's boyfriend hadn't noticed how special he was, haunts me every time I think about it.
Yeah cool but you're kinda part of the problem. I'm sure he's a lovely dog but the reality is probably 5% or less of dog owners are equipped to handle a dog like that. Most can't train a normal dog, let alone a dog with a disability and it's all sunshine and rainbows to have the dog go to someone's home but the amount of returned and deaf dogs we get is horrendous because people just don't want to deal with them.
I always adopt from shelters (or, once, a rescuer) anyway, but this makes me feel even more relieved that the county animal shelter is a no-kill shelter, space problems or not.
Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the "not kill" laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don't have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
Agreed, but in reality, the choices are A) adopt dangerous dogs out to people, B) hold onto the dogs for their entire natural life, C) release them onto the streets, or D) euthanize some of them.
A is obviously not ideal; a human getting killed by a dog that they expected to be nice is worse than that dog dying. B would be great if shelters had infinite space and infinite funding, but realistically they have limited space and limited funding. That leaves us with C or D. Stray animals make more stray animals, they attack people, pets, and wildlife, they spread disease, and they tend to die horrible deaths. Euthanasia sucks, but the real alternatives are worse.
The real solution that no one wants to implement is to make it a crime to have dogs and cats that aren't spayed or neutered, with extraordinarily rare exception. The only dogs that should be allowed to be bred are working dogs, and that should be closely regulated. Your shepherd/retriever mix, however cute he is, should not make more puppies as long as shelters are overflowing and turning animals away.
"But wouldn't that lead to the extinction of these companion animals?" Be realistic–this law would never catch every single illegal breeder, and it would never prevent strays from breeding. Dogs and cats would not go extinct, they would just stop bringing shelters to capacity and beyond.
There are plenty of less common dog breeds that should be preserved that aren't classified as "working dogs" any more.
Half the problem is that working breeds don't make good sedentary pets, but some of them are pretty or give off a certain vibe, so people buy them and can't take care of them. (See huskies, German Shepherds, Pit breeds, etc.)
Less-popular breeds with responsible clubs do just fine. Give clubs the ability to work with law enforcement to find and shut down irresponsible breeders, and the problem would be quickly resolved. Whether that's licensing to breed or some other solution, it should be possible.
Otherwise, I agree.
Before I say this, I feel it's important to clarify that I have nothing against any individual dogs or breeds, and I don't think any animals should have to be euthanized unless they've shown that they as an individual are dangerous.
That being said, I can't think of a single breed besides border collies that has any valid reason to exist for another generation. If breeders were more worried about breeding for health instead of looks and behaviour, I might be okay with it, but I've seen too many pure bred dogs with debilitating health defects due to their breed. German Shepherds are beautiful dogs, but it isn't worth making them suffer through hip displasia just to look at them.
I obviously don't think every dog except for border collies should go extinct within the next 20 years, but a law that criminalizes breeding wouldn't stop all dogs from breeding. There will never be a shortage of dogs for people to adopt, and a mutt is just as good, if not better, than a pure breed.
You should broaden your horizons. Many breeds concentrate on health. Behavior is important for many, too. Border collies couldn't do a vast majority of service animal tasks, and they make terrible pets, especially for families with small kids, which improves outstanding and mental health for children. There are other sports like scent and racing (for fun, not gambling.) Not to mention therapy animals. Border collies would have challenges there, too.
Hmm, I get your point - I think you're raising a compelling case.
I think, for me it comes down to the belief that only very, very few dogs are so aggressive and dangerous that no intervention will be able to change that. I (with great reluctance :) )agree that if a dog will never be able to get adopted, it is responsible to think if it would be more humane to euthasize him. But there are also far, far too many cases where dogs are killed because there just isn't enough money or interest in them to give them special treatment and care so that they can e.g. trust humans again and not see them as danger.
I also agree, however, that it would probably be a good idea to implement limiting measures to the amount of dogs out there, so that the problem isn't growing in scope - e.g. those you proposed. In the end though that can't be the solution to the moral question "is it okay for us to kill dogs with whom we haven't tried all in our power", it can just be a supporting factor so that we can avoid making these decisions as much as possible.
Those illegal breeders would make bank.
Well you can't really have evidence on something that is opinion from first hand experience.
The reason I disagree with them is that the majority of these dogs are going to spend a year or more essentially locked in a medium security dog prison before being put down because they were never suitable for readoption in the first place but you've got to play the game before they can be put down or wait for them to bite one of the handlers.
I agree, money would solve the entire problem but it's a struggling industry and I just don't see it happening anytime soon. Until it does, the no kill laws are hurting more animals than they save.
I understand. I'm living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn't get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a "no killing" law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.
No kill at least in Australia means you can't put animals to sleep due to over capacity, time frame etc. The only time they can be put down is when they've attacked or are showing high signs of aggression and the behaviour assessor finds they aren't suitable for readoption.
At that point, it becomes a duty of care to put the animal down as it's cruel to keep it in a kennel for the rest of its life and it can't be trusted as a family pet.
I understand. I think you raise an interesting thought... I get where the law is coming from, but it also makes sense that the way it is treated now makes it so that dogs who would live their entire life in captivity only suffer more.
Thank you for your insight - I appreciate it and will think about it.