Pitbulls mat not actually be dogs

[Potoooooooo]

https://retrieverman.net/2015/04/01/hybrid-origin-of-the-pit-bull-revealed-in-new-studies/

A recent study of pit bull skulls using 3-D imaging technology has revealed that they have skull measurements that are more similar to the extinct canids in the genus Borophagus. Further analysis involving SNP technology revealed that the average of 24.6 percent ancestry that is from a canid that is neither wolf nor domestic dog.

Abbott Millard, a canid researcher with the Dog Origins Project, has performed the 3-D imaging research, which included 130 pit bull skulls. His a comparison with the measurements of the pit bull skulls with those of several extant and extinct canids.

“Our results show that pit bulls have skull morphology most similar to the extinct dogs of the genus Borophagus. These results were quite shocking because Borophagus has been classified with an extinct group of canids that were thought not be related to modern dogs at all,” said Millard.

However, knowing that canids have a tendency towards convergent evolution in skull morphology, it is quite possible that pit bulls, a breed known for its massive jaw strength, evolved similar jaws to the Borphagus through similar selection pressures.

Which is why the Dog Origins Project decided to do some research on pit bull DNA. The researchers used SNP chip technology, which allows for extensive genome-wide assays. Similar research has been used to disprove East Asian origins for the domestic dog and raised real questions about the taxonomic status of the red wolf.

Otto Klinger, lead geneticist at the Dog Origins Project, compared DNA from 20 pit bulls, 15 boxers, 4 dingoes, 6 wolves from 4 different regions in the Old World, 12 coyotes, and 3 golden jackals. Pit bulls were found to be mostly domestic dog in origin, but a large sample of their genetic material didn’t match any extant canid.

“It is possible that this mystery canid was actually an undocumented wolf subspecies, but the finding that pit bulls have similar skulls to the Borophagus raises intriguing questions. It could mean that the pit bull terrier developed in America was crossed with a relict population of Borophagus,” said Klinger, “There are many mentions of strange wolves in the colonial literature that might be very suggestive of Borophagus, and there are mentions of blocky-headed wolfdogs belonging to the Algonquin peoples of the Northeast. Maybe these dogs and wolves were the relict Borophagus. They certainly would have been great fighting dogs.”

The discovery of the hybrid origin for the pit bull, though, does raise some important questions.

Millard believes that these studies mean that pit bulls deserve their own species status:

“The hybrid origin of the pit bull strongly suggests that we should not be classifying pit bulls as part of the greater dog species. We propose that the scientific name for the new pit bull species be Canis horribilus. Pit bulls are the grizzly bears of the dog world, so we think that we should use the grizzly bear’s name [Ursus arctos horribilus] to define the pit bull.”

 

[James Brown]

We propose that the scientific name for the new pit bull species be Canis horribilus.

That will do wonders for the Pitbull Enthusiasts' public relations image.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've only ever known two pitbulls. One of course was Petey from Our Gang, not to be confused with a bulldog wannabe from later remakes. The other was the protective neighborhood watchdog that roamed the streets when my kids were toddlers. I never knew at the time that they were pitbulls, only discovering this later.

 

[ronburgundy]

Seems the fake article is an attempt is to mock the idea that pit-bulls are uniquely dangerous, which is ironic since the whole movement claiming pit-bulls are perfectly safe unless abused seems based in lots of pseudo-science and irrational argument.

While the science about their innate aggressiveness is still unclear, there is more than enough reason to at least consider such innate aggression as very plausible.
After all, they get their name from the fact that they were created from bull-baiting dogs who were thrown into pits and bred to aggressively attack large bulls and bears by biting their faces and skulls. Given how dangerous this was for the dogs and that most domesticated dogs would not take on such a challenge unless attacked, they would very likely have been bred toward a tendency of unprovoked aggression where they just kept going at the animal until either they or it were dead.

This was done for centuries in Europe and so wide spread that many place had laws stating that no bull could be slaughtered for meat until after it had been through this blood sport. After it was outlawed in the 19th century is when people switched to fighting these dogs against each other, cross breeding with terriers to add agility and speed to the deadly combo of powerful jaws and go-for-head with unprovoked aggression they already had.

One thing we know for sure is that pit bulls are about 10 times more likely than other breeds to engage in fatal maulings of humans. The best data of this is from 20 years of CDC records. Is that entirely due to pit bulls being more mistreated and trained to fight? Possibly, but its highly irrational to deny the strong probability that being bred with human-created selection pressures to disregard their own life and maul large dangerous mammals by biting their face might have something to do with it too.

 

[Peez]

ronburgundy:
Seems the fake article is an attempt is to mock the idea that pit-bulls are uniquely dangerous, which is ironic since the whole movement claiming pit-bulls are perfectly safe unless abused seems based in lots of pseudo-science and irrational argument.

Speaking only for myself, I have never heard anyone claim that "pit-bulls" are "perfectly safe unless abused", but I certainly have heard it argued that they are no more dangerous to people than many other breeds (in as much as "pit-bull" can be considered a "breed").

While the science about their innate aggressiveness is still unclear, there is more than enough reason to at least consider such innate aggression as very plausible.
After all, they get their name from the fact that they were created from bull-baiting dogs who were thrown into pits and bred to aggressively attack large bulls and bears by biting their faces and skulls. Given how dangerous this was for the dogs and that most domesticated dogs would not take on such a challenge unless attacked, they would very likely have been bred toward a tendency of unprovoked aggression where they just kept going at the animal until either they or it were dead.

This is a fair assessment, though the "unprovoked aggression" is somewhat sensational. They were bred to be aggressive.

This was done for centuries in Europe and so wide spread that many place had laws stating that no bull could be slaughtered for meat until after it had been through this blood sport. After it was outlawed in the 19th century is when people switched to fighting these dogs against each other, cross breeding with terriers to add agility and speed to the deadly combo of powerful jaws and go-for-head with unprovoked aggression they already had.

It is difficult to assess bite strength, but most sources indicate that rottweilers, German shepherd dogs, and some other breeds have stronger bites than Staffordshire bull terriers. Both rotties and GSD's were bred, and continue to be bred, as guard dogs, and may be aggressive with strangers.

One thing we know for sure is that pit bulls are about 10 times more likely than other breeds to engage in fatal maulings of humans.

You may know that but "we" do not. According to Wikipedia (with the usual caveats for that source):

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association: 2000–2009

The most recent study of the epidemiology of fatal dog bites in the United States was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2013.[8] While earlier studies were based on television and newspaper reports, this was the first study to be based on law-enforcement reports, animal control reports, and investigator statements. It identified preventable factors in the fatal incidents. They found that the most common contributing factors were: absence of an able-bodied person to intervene, no familiar relationship of victims with dogs, owner failure to neuter dogs, compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (e.g. mental disabilities), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (e.g. dogs kept chained in backyards), owners' prior mismanagement of dogs, and owners' history of abuse or neglect of dogs. Furthermore, they found that in 80% of the incidents, 4 or more of the above factors co-occurred.

The authors found that in a significant number of DBRFs there was either a conflict between different media sources reporting breed and/or a conflict between media and animal control reports relative to the reporting of breed. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts of DBRFs, media sources reported conflicting breed attributions for 124 of the dogs (30.9%); and where there were media reports and an animal control report (346 dogs), there were conflicting breed attributions for 139 dogs (40.2%)

According to this study, reliable verification of the breed of dog was only possible in 18% of incidents.

I am reminded of this poster:

The best data of this is from 20 years of CDC records.

Link?

Is that entirely due to pit bulls being more mistreated and trained to fight? Possibly, but its highly irrational to deny the strong probability that being bred with human-created selection pressures to disregard their own life and maul large dangerous mammals by biting their face might have something to do with it too.

I note the "disregard their own life" thrown in there.

Let's talk about rates of evolution: how many generations would it take for selection of docile dogs to drive evolution from a breed that is very aggressive with bulls and other dogs to a breed that is no more aggressive than a German shepherd? It would be helpful if you included estimates of heritability, selection coefficients, and population sizes.

Let's also talk about variance in the trait. If "pit-bulls" are indeed more aggressive than some other breeds, is the difference greater, similar, or less than the difference in aggression between dogs that are raised to be aggressive and those that are not? In other words, is a German shepherd raised to be aggressive more aggressive than a "pit-bull" raised to be docile?

Let's talk about other breeds. The "bit-bull" is one group of breeds, if we determine that other breeds are more aggressive than average, should we outlaw them all? Should we only allow the most docile breeds?

For the record, I accept that some dog breeds tend to be more aggressive than others. Although I have at yet seen no good evidence that the breeds loosely defined as "pit-bulls" are more aggressive than others, it is not unreasonable to suspect that they are. On the other hand, based on the information I have it is unreasonable to conclude that they are. It they are, on average, more aggressive than the average dog, they are not alone: many dog breeds are likely more aggressive than the average. I suspect that all breeds will be scattered along some 'aggression' axis.

That concerns averages, but of course dogs are individuals. It should be obvious when people spend tens of thousands of dollars for "pit-bull" puppies sired by a champion show dog. Many traits vary from one dog family to another, and this includes aggression. I have no doubt that, even if "pit-bulls" are on average more prone to aggression than some other breeds, that many families of "pit-bulls" are less prone to aggression than many other breeds.

Then there is the "perfectly safe unless abused" simplistic comment. I cannot point to any study, but in my experience: There are dogs that are born more aggressive than others, but the biggest determinant of dog aggression is how the dogs are raised. This does not necessarily mean whether or not the dog is 'abused', it just means that dogs of many breeds can easily be trained to be dangerous.

When I meet a "pit-bull" that I do not know, I am extra-cautious. It is my judgement that a random unfamiliar "pit-bull" is not likely to be dangerous, but is more likely to be dangerous than a random unfamiliar (say) Labrador retriever. That is mostly because a person who wants their dog to be aggressive is more likely to get a "pit-bull". If "pit-bulls" are not available, such people will get a rottweiler, or doberman, or some other breed and make it dangerous. It is these people who are the problem, not the dog breeds.

Peez

 

[Bronzeage]

I tend to be suspicious of any blog post dated April 1.

 

[braces_for_impact]

However, knowing that canids have a tendency towards convergent evolution in skull morphology, it is quite possible that pit bulls, a breed known for its massive jaw strength, evolved similar jaws to the Borphagus through similar selection pressures.

I'm no expert, but this was my first thought.

 

[ronburgundy]

Speaking only for myself, I have never heard anyone claim that "pit-bulls" are "perfectly safe unless abused", but I certainly have heard it argued that they are no more dangerous to people than many other breeds (in as much as "pit-bull" can be considered a "breed").

It is rather common for pit bull activist to claim that pit bulls pose no more danger than an average mutt, and that 100% of the problem is that pit bulls are more likely to be abused and trained to fight.
They deny that breeding has done anything to pit bull temperament as it relates to aggressive behavior.

While the science about their innate aggressiveness is still unclear, there is more than enough reason to at least consider such innate aggression as very plausible.
After all, they get their name from the fact that they were created from bull-baiting dogs who were thrown into pits and bred to aggressively attack large bulls and bears by biting their faces and skulls. Given how dangerous this was for the dogs and that most domesticated dogs would not take on such a challenge unless attacked, they would very likely have been bred toward a tendency of unprovoked aggression where they just kept going at the animal until either they or it were dead.

This is a fair assessment, though the "unprovoked aggression" is somewhat sensational. They were bred to be aggressive.

Aggressive means likely to engage in an unprovoked attack. They were not bred merely to be defensive. It means they are likely to initiate a violent conflict, even with a large mammal that is chained to the ground and poses a threat only if the dog initiates a conflict with it.

This was done for centuries in Europe and so wide spread that many place had laws stating that no bull could be slaughtered for meat until after it had been through this blood sport. After it was outlawed in the 19th century is when people switched to fighting these dogs against each other, cross breeding with terriers to add agility and speed to the deadly combo of powerful jaws and go-for-head with unprovoked aggression they already had.

It is difficult to assess bite strength, but most sources indicate that rottweilers, German shepherd dogs, and some other breeds have stronger bites than Staffordshire bull terriers. Both rotties and GSD's were bred, and continue to be bred, as guard dogs, and may be aggressive with strangers.

Well yeah, Rotties are rather dangerous too. They come in a close 2nd in fatal maulings of humans (see link below). But it isn't just about bite pressure. Bull-baiting dogs were bred specifically to go straight for the face and head of large mammals, and not merely in guarding against intruders but initiating an attack against a chained one ton animal biting its face and corkscrewing its body, and not letting go until the bull what flipped to the ground or dead.

One thing we know for sure is that pit bulls are about 10 times more likely than other breeds to engage in fatal maulings of humans.

You may know that but "we" do not.

Your link isn't about fatal mauling, but about any kind of bite. A tea cup poodle nipping a person's finger whose playing with the dog is rather different than a dog chasing down a passer by, biting their face off and attacking them till dead. Yes, non-fatal bites happen way more often, but my focus has been specifically on the fatal danger some breeds pose because of a combination of bred aggression, including the way they attack and their physical capability of killing even a strong adult trying to defend themselves.

Also, fatal maulings have much higher reliability of info than mere bites, because they involve a death that is investigated by authorities.

Here is the CDC report that covers 20 years. They got their data for all but the last 2 years from the official records of fatal maulings kept by The Humane Society of the United States. Rotties are the dogs most often mistaken for pitbulls and vice versa. But that doesn't really make the case look better for Pit Bulls, because Rotties are a close 2nd place. Out of 31 breeds (including pure breds, cross-breds, and "non-specific mix") that were involved in fatal maulings in those 20 years, Pit Bull "types" and Rotties together accounted for nearly half of all fatal maulings.

Now, apologists dishonestly harp on the fact that the report cautions against using the numbers to determine the exact breed risk because the number of each breed in the US in not known. But they ignore the fact that the report continues on to point out that there clearly is a heightened risk of these breeds because there is no way they are anywhere close to half of all dogs in the US during those decades. A reasonable estimate would be somewhere around 1/10th that figure, so around 5% of all dogs in the US. That would mean they are over represented in fatal mauling cases by a factor of 10.

I note the "disregard their own life" thrown in there.

Yeah, you should note that, because bull-bait dogs were bred to not be cautious and merely defend their own life, but to put their like at serious risk by attacking one-ton mammals. They were bred to be fearlessly aggressive. That's a dangerous combo.

Your other speculative questions are valid ones. As I said, I don't think their is enough science to be sure that modern pit bulls that don't come from recent fighting stock share the genetic disposition of fearless killing aggression that was bred into their ancestors.
But a continued aggressive disposition is highly plausible and possible the most parsimonious account in light of the reality of their ancestral breeding, the fact they continue to be the dog of choice for criminal dog fighters who want those traits in a dog, and their objectively much higher probability of mauling a human to death than other breeds, and by a mile compared to all but a couple of breeds.
Also, the amount of damage an animal can do if they get aggressive should be a major factor that lowers the threshold of possible aggression that is tolerated. This potential for damage when aggressive plays a huge role in determining what non-domesticated "exotic" animals can be kept as pets, and should equally play a role in regulations regarding so-called "domesticated" animals whose brain and lack of reasoning capacity means they are always just a startle away from being as wild as their ancestors.

 

[Peez]

ronburgundy:
It is rather common for pit bull activist to claim that pit bulls pose no more danger than an average mutt, and that 100% of the problem is that pit bulls are more likely to be abused and trained to fight.
They deny that breeding has done anything to pit bull temperament as it relates to aggressive behavior.

I am not certain of what a "pit bull activist is", but it would not surprise me that some people make that claim. Certainly the arguments that I have seen put forth by humane societies against "pit bull" bans do not go that far.

Aggressive means likely to engage in an unprovoked attack. They were not bred merely to be defensive. It means they are likely to initiate a violent conflict, even with a large mammal that is chained to the ground and poses a threat only if the dog initiates a conflict with it.

Aggressive means more likely to attack, provoked or unprovoked. However, if aggressive means more likely to make an unprovoked attack, then "unprovoked aggression" is simply redundant.

Your link isn't about fatal mauling, but about any kind of bite.

It was not meant to be about fatal maulings. It was meant to show that the breed of dog involved in incidents of aggression is very often difficult or impossible to determine.

Also, fatal maulings have much higher reliability of info than mere bites, because they involve a death that is investigated by authorities.

This is almost certainly true, but apart from the poor definition of "pit bull", 'more' does not necessarily mean 'a lot'.

Here is the CDC report that covers 20 years.

Thank you.

They got their data for all but the last 2 years from the official records of fatal maulings kept by The Humane Society of the United States. Rotties are the dogs most often mistaken for pitbulls and vice versa. But that doesn't really make the case look better for Pit Bulls, because Rotties are a close 2nd place.

It does call into question whether rotties or "pit bulls" should hold first place.

Out of 31 breeds (including pure breds, cross-breds, and "non-specific mix") that were involved in fatal maulings in those 20 years, Pit Bull "types" and Rotties together accounted for nearly half of all fatal maulings.

Now, apologists dishonestly harp on the fact that the report cautions against using the numbers to determine the exact breed risk because the number of each breed in the US in not known. But they ignore the fact that the report continues on to point out that there clearly is a heightened risk of these breeds because there is no way they are anywhere close to half of all dogs in the US during those decades. A reasonable estimate would be somewhere around 1/10th that figure, so around 5% of all dogs in the US. That would mean they are over represented in fatal mauling cases by a factor of 10.

That is quite a lot of supposing, it would be safer to suggest that the data indicates that rotweillers and "pit bulls" are together responsible for more fatal maulings than any other breed, in spite of the other breeds being far more common. I would hesitate putting any specific value, though the ten times value might not be unreasonable.

Yeah, you should note that, because bull-bait dogs were bred to not be cautious and merely defend their own life, but to put their like at serious risk by attacking one-ton mammals. They were bred to be fearlessly aggressive. That's a dangerous combo.

On the other hand they were also bred to survive. There is not need to exaggerate, there is already a good basis to argue that they were bred to be aggressive.

Your other speculative questions are valid ones. As I said, I don't think their is enough science to be sure that modern pit bulls that don't come from recent fighting stock share the genetic disposition of fearless killing aggression that was bred into their ancestors.
But a continued aggressive disposition is highly plausible and possible the most parsimonious account in light of the reality of their ancestral breeding, the fact they continue to be the dog of choice for criminal dog fighters who want those traits in a dog, and their objectively much higher probability of mauling a human to death than other breeds, and by a mile compared to all but a couple of breeds.

I am not sure that it is the most parsimonious conclusion, but I agree that it would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand. That being said, my questions were not entirely speculative.

Also, the amount of damage an animal can do if they get aggressive should be a major factor that lowers the threshold of possible aggression that is tolerated. This potential for damage when aggressive plays a huge role in determining what non-domesticated "exotic" animals can be kept as pets, and should equally play a role in regulations regarding so-called "domesticated" animals whose brain and lack of reasoning capacity means they are always just a startle away from being as wild as their ancestors.

I agree, but this brings us back to where the problem lies. If people wish to ban all dogs over, say, 25 kg (55 lbs), this would likely reduce fatal dog attacks. Reducing highway speed limits to 50 kph (35 mph) would save even more lives. We should adopt regulations that are prudent but reasonable. As far as I can determine, the single greatest risk factor for a fatal dog attack is the treatment of the dog by its owner, assuming that it is large enough. I cannot back that up with any actual research, but this is a variable not included in the data underlying your linked study, which brings the results into doubt.

In any event I agree that anyone who dismisses the notion of different levels of aggression in different breeds of dog is naive. That said, it is my opinion that the main driver of the association between "pit bulls" and fatal attacks is the fact that "pit bulls" have a reputation that attracts people who teach dogs to be dangerous.

Peez

 

[untermensche]

It is clear that the dog phenotype is extremely malleable.

Just because you have similar measurements in skull size it does not mean it is a descendant.

It could be a random change in bone size.

 

[Peez]

It is clear that the dog phenotype is extremely malleable.

Just because you have similar measurements in skull size it does not mean it is a descendant.

It could be a random change in bone size.

Absolutely. To put it politely, the blog post should not be taken seriously. My favourite quote: "...it is quite possible that pit bulls, a breed known for its massive jaw strength, evolved similar jaws to the Borphagus through similar selection pressures." The bite strength of "pit bulls" appears to be lower than that for some other dogs, including German shepherd dogs <https://plexidors.com/myths-around-dog-bite-force/>.

Peez

 

[untermensche]

It is clear that the dog phenotype is extremely malleable.

Just because you have similar measurements in skull size it does not mean it is a descendant.

It could be a random change in bone size.

Absolutely. To put it politely, the blog post should not be taken seriously. My favourite quote: "...it is quite possible that pit bulls, a breed known for its massive jaw strength, evolved similar jaws to the Borphagus through similar selection pressures." The bite strength of "pit bulls" appears to be lower than that for some other dogs, including German shepherd dogs <https://plexidors.com/myths-around-dog-bite-force/>.

Peez

You need genetic testing to test for lineage, not phrenology.

 

[Peez]

Absolutely. To put it politely, the blog post should not be taken seriously. My favourite quote: "...it is quite possible that pit bulls, a breed known for its massive jaw strength, evolved similar jaws to the Borphagus through similar selection pressures." The bite strength of "pit bulls" appears to be lower than that for some other dogs, including German shepherd dogs <https://plexidors.com/myths-around-dog-bite-force/>.

Peez

You need genetic testing to test for lineage, not phrenology.

Yup.

Peez