Anthrozoös

A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals

ISSN: 0892-7936 (Print) 1753-0377 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20

Are “Pit Bulls” Different? An Analysis of the Pit Bull

Terrier Controversy

Randall Lockwood & Kate Rindy

To cite this article: Randall Lockwood & Kate Rindy (1987) Are “Pit Bulls” Different? An Analysis
of the Pit Bull Terrier Controversy, Anthrozoös, 1:1, 2-8

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279388787058713

Published online: 27 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20

Download by: [University of Exeter] Date: 07 September 2016, At: 17:08

COMMENTARY
ARE “PIT BULLS” DIFFERENT? AN (Pickney and Kennedy 1982; Multani and
Clifford 1985; Wright 1985). However, many fac-
ANALYSIS OF THE PIT BULL
tors, including the following, can bias breed-spe-
TERRIER CONTROVERSY cific bite rates:

Randall Lockwood and Kate Rindy 1. Overreporting of bites attributed to a particular

breed
2. Difficulty in identifying a particular breed
One of the most controversial aspects of animal 3. Underreporting of the population of a particu-
control legislation is characterizing a dog as vi- lar breed, including aberrant registration or li-
cious, or in some way restricting ownership of a censing rates
breed, on the basis of breed description alone. 4. A tendency to find specific breeds within
Thus far, breed-specific regulations have affected populations of dog owners more likely to
only “pit bulls,” but breed clubs and other organi- maintain their animals irresponsibly
zations of dog owners fear that such restrictions
might extend to other breeds in the future All of these factors may apply to analyses of pit
(Lockwood 1986). This article reviews some of the bull bite rates.
historical, ethological, and epidemiological evi- First, dog fighting and bites attributed to fight-
dence relevant to the question of whether pit bull ing breeds attract considerable attention in the
terriers present special animal control problems print and electronic media. If a community is hav-
justifying unusual legislative action. ing a problem with dangerous dogs, any bite or
From an epidemiological perspective, it is dif- attempted bite involving pit bulls is likely to find
ficult to draw scientifically sound conclusions its way into newspapers and local records.
about the dangers posed by a specific breed. Second, people commonly use the term pit
Many lists of the breeds most likely to bite have bull to describe a variety of registered and unreg-
appeared in the popular press, but accurate istered dogs, including the American pit bull ter-
breed-specific bite rates are very difficult to com- rier (registered by United Kennel Club and Ameri-
pute. Such statistics require good data for both the can Dog Breeders Association), the American
numerator (number of bites attributed to a particu- Staffordshire terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier,
lar breed) and the denominator (number of ani- the bull terrier, and the bulldog (all registered by
mals in that breed). To get good data, one must the American Kennel Club), and many mixtures of
have detailed and accurate reports of all bites, these breeds with one another and with other
including reliable information about the breed(s) breeds.
and registration of all animals in question, and There is considerable controversy over the
detailed demographics of the whole dog popula- ability of animal control officers, law enforcement
tion of the community. officials, and veterinarians to positively identify
Several studies suggest that the bite rate for pit individual dogs as pit bulls. One survey of over
bulls is significantly higher than for other breeds 2,000 bite reports (Beck, Loring, and Lockwood
1975) found that any medium-sized black and tan
animal was likely to be recorded as a German
Randall Lockwood, Ph.D., and Kate Rindy work in the
Higher Education Programs of the Humane Society of shepherd. Similarly, any stocky short-haired ani-
the United States, 2100 L St. NW, Washington, DC mal involved in an attack is likely to be recorded
20037. as a pit bull. It is not unusual to find newspaper
This article is reprinted from The Pit Bull Terrier accounts of “pit bull attacks” accompanied by a
Controversy (1987) by permission of the Tufts Center picture of a boxer, pug, or some other breed.
for Animals, Boston, Mass. Third, low estimates of the total population of

2 ANTHROZOÖS, Volume I, Number 1 Randall Lockwood and Kate Rindy

specific breeds will inflate bite rates. Several of the this paper. For in-depth information see Pit Bull
preceding studies used AKC registrations to esti- Report (Lockwood and Miller 1986) or other stan-
mate the frequency of bites for various breeds in dard references (for example, Matz 1984;
the total population of dogs. This approach is Semenic 1984). We can, however, briefly point to
likely to produce erroneous results for pit bulls, some illuminating facts. All dogs of the pit bull
since many pit bull owners register their dogs with type trace their ancestry to the bulldogs of the
organizations other than the AKC (including UKC nineteenth century. These animals were originally
and ADBA), and very few dogs have dual registra- used for bullbaiting in England. When England
tion. Also, pit bull owners are probably less likely passed laws against bullbaiting in 1835, orga-
to register or license their animals than owners of nized dog fighting became popular, resulting in a
other breeds, given past attempts to impose re- proliferation of smaller dogs bred for combat.
strictions on the breed. These smaller dogs became popular in America at
Finally, although there are many well-bred pit about the time of the Civil War.
bull terriers with responsible owners, the tradi- The United Kennel Club was founded in 1898
tional association of pit bulls with illegal dog to register pit bull terriers and to standardize the
fighting means that a disproportionate number of rules of dog fighting. In 1935 the American Ken-
these dogs belong to that class of dog owners nel Club, which had registered pit bull terriers
likely to exercise less responsibility for the care since its founding, began registering them as
and supervision of any type of dog. Bite rates, Staffordshire terriers; it renamed them American
therefore, may say more about the irresponsibility Staffordshire terriers in 1972. Today, even though
of owners who tend to prefer pit bulls than about both AKC and UKC have taken a stand against
the viciousness of pit bulls themselves. dog fighting, owners of registered dogs still pride
The few communities that claim to have docu- themselves on their animals’ “gameness.”
mented higher bite rates for pit bulls have not A long history of breeding for bullbaiting and
taken into consideration the confounding factors fighting has had a profound effect on the genetic
just mentioned. Unfortunately, there are no state- predisposition of many of the fighting breeds. In
wide or nationwide reporting systems that would many cases, a shorter history of selection for
support epidemiological generalizations. When qualities that might make these animals suitable
addressing problems in the real world, however, it as household companions has counteracted this
is important to separate issues of epidemiology effect. The extent to which breeding has altered
and ethology from issues of public safety and leg- the original temperaments of fighting breeds is
islation. The public may demand protective legis- often difficult to predict in a given animal. The
lation if it perceives any increased bite risk, no following characteristics of fighting dogs contrib-
matter how small, to be associated with a breed. ute to the problems these animals may present:
Recent court actions suggest that law enforcement
and animal control agencies have a broad man- 1. Aggression against dogs and other animals.
date to give the protection of the public priority The primary quality for which pit bulls have been
over the right to own property that may cause selected is “gameness.” A game animal is ready
harm. In the absence of conclusive data, legisla- and willing for combat and unyielding in battle
tors tend to err in the direction of safety. with another creature. Certain genetically based
With these problems in mind, we can address characteristics reflect gameness. One important
several questions. First, are there biological or characteristic is a low level of fighting inhibition.
ethological reasons why pit bull terriers might Most wild and domestic dogs fight one an-
present special dangers? Second, do all pit bulls other only to drive a rival away from some dis-
present these dangers? If not, are there other pre- puted object—food, mate, or territory. The attack
dictable factors associated with dogs or owners ends when the rival withdraws or displays signals
that are likely to cause harm? of surrender. Bluff, such as growling or staring, is
A review of the origins of pit bulls provides usually the preferred tactic. Actual attacks are
some insight. We do not intend to provide a de- usually last-resort confrontations. In fighting
tailed history of the various pit-bull-type breeds in breeds this inhibition against attacking has been

Are “Pit Bulls” Different? ANTHROZOÖS, Volume I, Number 1 3

selected against. These animals will fight with no hand, have been selected to inflict maximum
provocation, and a game animal will fight until damage on their opponents by sustained grab-
complete exhaustion or death. In this sense, these bing, holding, shaking, and tearing. To our knowl-
animals are not “doing what comes naturally.” edge, there is no direct evidence of unusually
Their behavior is totally abnormal in an evolution- great biting force in fighting dogs. These animals
ary or ecological sense and is strictly the result of do not possess any unusual adaptations for “lock-
human intervention. This lowered inhibition ing” their jaws. The increased destructiveness of
against aggression may also apply to other spe- pit bull bites is attributable to the behavioral fac-
cies, particularly smaller animals such as cats. tors of persistence and stamina rather than to any
The flight of a potential prey animal usually biomechanical factors.
triggers predatory attacks in wild and domestic 4. Aggression toward people. The fighting dogs
dogs. This is why many breeds may pursue or at- of the nineteenth century generally posed little or
tack moving people or objects like joggers, bicy- no threat to people. These animals were disquali-
clists, and cars. But animals selected for fied in the pit if they exhibited aggression to their
bullbaiting and fighting had to show gameness handlers or other people. Early in this century
against animals that were either restrained or con- several former fighting breeds such as the bull ter-
fined, so these animals and their descendants are rier and the English bulldog were specifically se-
more likely to attack targets that do not flee or lected for their good dispositions around people.
show other “provocative” behaviors.
Gameness also seems to include a genetically As mentioned earlier, AKC, UKC, and ADBA
based lowering of sensitivity to pain. Many fight- animals are all descended from fighting stocks.
ing breeds show no outward sign of disturbance Breed standards for the American Staffordshire
by severe injuries. terrier and the American pit bull terrier make little
2. Decreased communication. Dogs, like like or no reference to temperament, although an ani-
wolves, are highly social and possess a rich reper- mal that attacks a person or a dog in the show ring
toire of signals to communicate their moods and may be disqualified. Many individual breeders
intentions to others. Animals selected for fighting have attempted to produce animals with stable
do not reveal their intentions or weaknesses and dispositions toward people. There are many ex-
are not inhibited by opponents’ displays of sub- amples of well-behaved dogs of these breeds, but
mission or surrender. Fighting dogs offer little or there have been no uniform standards in this di-
no indication that they are about to charge or at- rection. Nonregistered and pit-bull-mix dogs,
tack. They often fail to give warning with a growl, which are becoming increasingly popular, have
an aggressive facial expression, or other sign. been subjected to even less selection for stable
They are often insensitive to behaviors that usu- temperament than their registered counterparts.
ally stop aggression. For example, dogs not bred The widespread practice of hybridizing Ameri-
for fighting usually display defeat in combat by can Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull
rolling over and exposing a light underside. On terriers with other breeds can produce particularly
several occasions, pit bulls have been reported to dangerous animals. American Staffordshire and
disembowel other dogs offering this signal of sub- pit bull terriers were bred to show little aggression
mission. to people. Other breeds with which they are com-
3. Attack behaviors. Dogs use many different monly hybridized, such as the German shepherd,
styles of attack against members of their own and Bullmastiff, Rottweiler, and Rhodesian ridgeback,
other species. Many breeds have styles of biting have been selected for use as guard dogs against
that reflect the purposes for which they were bred. human intruders. The result can easily be an ani-
Guard dogs such as German shepherds, for ex- mal with the fighting potential of the classic pit
ample, tend to restrain their enemies by grabbing dogs and the potential aggressiveness to people of
and holding. The fighting breeds, on the other guard dogs.

4 ANTHROZOÖS, Volume I, Number 1 Randall Lockwood and Kate Rindy

 The lack of uniform standards of temperament, thirds of the fatalities we have learned of during
the lack of inhibition of aggression, the strength the last three years have involved pit bulls. Past
and tenacity of attacks, and the failure to show and current AKC and UKC registrations and AKC
appropriate warning signs of aggression all estimates of the ratio of unregistered to registered
represent potential risks associated with fighting dogs show that there are roughly 500,000 to 1
breeds and their hybrids. As previously million pit-bull-type dogs in the United States, or
mentioned, there is little reliable evidence about an estimated 1–2% of the entire dog population. It
breed-specific bite rates. We have conducted seems clear, then, that pit bulls are over-
research to gain some additional insight from two represented in the small population of dogs
other sources—reports of fatal attacks and a involved in human fatalities.
survey of press reports of dog bites. The injuries inflicted by pit bulls in the cases
Although many dog bites go unreported to we have studied are noticeably different from the
either the press or to a board of health, we are injuries inflicted in fatal attacks by other breeds.
certain that virtually all dog-related fatalities are Pit bull victims typically had large portions of
reported. When we learn of a dog-related fatality tissue torn away, whereas victims of other breeds
through local humane groups, veterinarians, typically died from a smaller number of
health departments, or the press, we contact the exsanguinating injuries or from a single crushing
appropriate authorities to get a complete record injury to the brain or spinal cord. We are
of the incident and subsequent investigations. In preparing a more detailed review of these
several cases, we have been able to conduct on- incidents.
site investigations. In order to gain insight into serious but nonfa-
In 1986 we received reports of 12 fatalities tal dog attack injuries, we reviewed press clip-
from dog attack (see Table 1). Seven of these pings of 278 dog attacks compiled by two clip-
attacks involved at least one pit bull. Eleven of the ping services from approximately 1,100 newspa-
12 fatalities involved children aged 7 or under. A pers for the period from January 1, 1986, to Octo-
less comprehensive survey of fatal attacks ber 1,1986. We abstracted as much information
between October 1983 and December 1984 as possible from each report, following the format
yielded reports of 9 additional fatalities, 7 of used by Beck, Loring, and Lockwood (1975) in
which involved at least one pit bull. Thus, two their survey of police reports.

Are “Pit Bulls” Different? ANTHROZOÖS, Volume I, Number 1 5

 ures suggest that the press is not more likely to
report nonserious pit bull bites just because they
involve pit bulls; if they did, we would expect a
higher proportion of reports of nonserious pit
bull bites. Out of the 91 serious bites reported,
however, over half (60.4%) involved pit bulls.
Thus, these reports indicate that pit bulls are more
likely to be involved in serious bites, and serious
bites tend to involve pit bulls more often than
other breeds.
Two other measures of the severity of bites are
the incidence of bites to the face and the number
of bites involving multiple injuries to several body
areas. Victims under 9 years of age tended to re-
ceive a high proportion (around 60%) of facial
bites from all breeds. Pit bulls do not inflict more
We realize that we cannot use this analysis to facial injuries than other breeds to any group.
draw breed-specific conclusions about bite rates, However, pit bulls are more likely to inflict mul-
since there may be a tendency to report pit bull tiple injuries on older victims: 35% of older pit
attacks more often than others. In fact, 143 of the bull victims received multiple injuries, compared
reports, or 51.4%, dealt with pit bull incidents. Of with 18.5% of older victims of other breeds.
the remainder, 11.5% dealt with German shep- Previous studies of dog bite epidemiology (for
herds or German shepherd mixed breeds, 7.2% example, Beck, Loring, and Lockwood 1975) sug-
with Dobermans, 4.7% with Labradors, 2.9% gest that the majority of incidents involve free-
with Chows, and 22.3% with other unidentified roaming, owned animals. Virtually all the dogs in
breeds. Thus, we are not asking the question “Are the cases we studied were owned. A surprising
pit bulls different?” but instead are asking “Are pit number, however, were restrained at the time of
bull attacks different?” Our analysis of press clip- the attack. In the case of pit bull bites, 61 of 143
pings indicates several relevant differences. (42.7%) involved animals that were fenced,
Beck, Loring, and Lockwood (1975) reported chained, or inside prior to the incident. Twenty
that most serious dog bite cases involve children, cases (14%) involved pit bulls that escaped by
and our analysis agrees (see Table 2). There is, jumping fences or breaking chains immediately
however, a higher proportion of adolescents and before the attack. Of the 135 cases involving
adults among pit bull victims (54.1%) than among other breeds, 36 (26.7%) involved restrained ani-
victims of other breeds (38.1 %). This suggests that mals, but only 1 (0.7%) broke restraint to initiate
greater size and maturity are less of a defense the attack.
against pit bulls than they are against other attack- The press accounts support the fact that most
ing breeds. Familiarity with the animal also ap- dog bites are unprovoked. Table 3 describes the
pears to provide less protection in the case of pit victims’ interactions with dogs in the 163 reports
bulls. Out of 143 pit bull attacks, 19 (13.3%) in- in which details were provided. The most note-
volved attacks on the owner; out of 135 attacks by worthy distinction between pit bull attacks and
other breeds, only 3 (2.2%) involved the owner. attacks involving other breeds is that 24.8% of the
We characterized an injury as serious if the former involved the victim coming to the aid of an
report indicated a need for suturing, hospitaliza- animal or person already injured by the attacking
tion, or other medical intervention. Of the 143 animal. This occurred in only 11.3% of the attacks
reports of pit bull attacks, 55 (38.5%) were seri- by other breeds.
ous. Of the 135 reports of attacks by other Our overview suggests that some pit bulls
breeds, only 36 (26.7%) were serious. These fig- present special problems. They account for a

6 ANTHROZOÖS, Volume I, Number 1 Randall Lockwood and Kate Rindy

 UKC-registered animals, nor did press accounts
of nonfatal bites ever mention registration. Al-
though the nature and severity of pit bull attacks
reflect the effects of the dogs’ selection for fight-
ing, we must recognize the variability in the ani-
mals that we call pit bulls and in their owners.
The genetics of canine aggression are still
poorly understood, although the existence of
many breeds intentionally selected for aggression
under different circumstances clearly demon-
strates a strong genetic component to some as-
pects of aggressive behavior. It is quite possible
that the term pit bull encompasses a variety of
genetically diverse animals. The long history of
selection for gameness has produced a character-
istic fighting dog. The shorter history of breeding
for pet qualities has clearly overcome many nega-
tive characteristics in responsibly bred animals.
The remaining factors affecting dog attack are
all human variables related to the level of owner
responsibility and supervision. Many owners are
responsible people, well aware of the history of
disproportionate number of fatal attacks, al- pit bulls, and they attempt to correct problems of
though these are few; and they are more likely aggression inherited from the past. Other owners
than other breeds to inflict serious injuries, to at- are ignorant of the breed. Most troublesome are
tack while restrained or after breaking out of re- owners specifically seeking a “mean” dog. In their
straint, and to attack adults, including their owners. hands, any dog is likely to become a menace, a
These generalizations seem to be supportable, pit bull particularly so. The interest among less
but we feel that we cannot use them to make pre- responsible owners and breeders in overall
dictions about the behavior of an individual ani- “meanness” has affected at least the last 10 to 20
mal. A dog’s tendency to bite is a product of at generations of dogs; this fact may partly account
least five factors: for the recent increase in the number of problem
animals. Finally, there continues to be an interest
• The dog’s genetic predisposition to be aggres- in dog fighting. The dogs that prove to be too ag-
sive gressive to people to be acceptable for dog fight-
• The early socialization of the animal to people ing often wind up in the hands of owners seeking
• Its training for obedience or mistraining for a “mean” dog.
fighting The common theme in virtually all of the fatal
• The quality of care and supervision provided and nonfatal attacks we reviewed was that the
by the owner owner had not taken appropriate steps to prevent
• The behavior of the victim his or her animal from becoming a problem. Sim-
ply placing an animal behind a fence or on a
All of these factors interact. Genetic predispo- chain is not sufficiently responsible behavior, par-
sition is the only factor directly relevant to the ticularly in the case of a breed or individual ani-
issue of breed-specific restrictions. Are pit bulls as mal inclined to attack others.
a group genetically uniform and predictably ag- Problems of irresponsible ownership are not
gressive enough to warrant special restrictions? unique to pit bulls, nor will they be in the future.
Responsible breeders argue that they are not. For this reason, we feel that effective animal con-
None of the 1986 fatalities involved AKC-or trol legislation must emphasize responsible and

Are “Pit Bulls” Different? ANTHROZOÖS, Volume I, Number 1 7

humane ownership of sound animals as well as solving their current animal problems and pre-
responsible supervision of children and animals venting new ones.
when they interact. We believe that this can be
accomplished in a number of ways:
REFERENCES
• Strengthen and enforce laws against dog fight- Beck, A.M., H.Loring, and R.Lockwood. 1975. The Ecol-
ing to eliminate the “macho” image of this ogy of Dog Bite Injury in St. Louis, Missouri. Public
Health Reports 90(3):262–267.
activity. Lockwood, R. 1986. Vicious Dogs. Humane Society
• Introduce and enforce strong animal control News (Winter).
laws to identify problem animals and owners Lockwood, R., and P.Miller. 1986. Pit Bull Report. Hu-
before tragedy strikes. (Guidelines for such or- mane Society of the United States, 2100 L St. NW,
dinances are available from the Humane Soci- Washington, DC 20037.
Matz, K.S. 1984. The Pit Bull: Fact and Fable. Sacra-
ety of the United States, 2100 L St. NW, Wash- mento: De Mortmain Books.
ington, DC 20037.) Multani, P., and D.H.Clifford. 1985. Are Pit Bulls Giving
• Introduce programs to educate the public Good Dogs a Bad Name? Community Animal Control
about responsible ownership and the problems 4(3):16–17.
of dog bite. Pickney, L.E., and L.A.Kennedy. 1982. Traumatic Deaths
from Dog Attacks in the United States. Pediatrics
39:193–196.
We feel that it is possible to protect the health Semenic, C. 1984. The World of Fighting Dogs. Neptune
and safety of the public and at the same time pre- City, N.J.: T.F.H. Publications.
serve the rights of pet owners. By placing greater Wright, J.C. 1985. Severe Attacks by Dogs: Characteris-
emphasis on responsible and humane animal tics of the Dogs, the Victims, and the Attack Settings.
Public Health Reports 100(1):55–61.
care, communities can go a long way toward

8 ANTHROZOÖS, Volume I, Number 1 Randall Lockwood and Kate Rindy