question about camping with a pittbull

Pawz4me wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
Pawz4me - as I mentioned above, the dog's purpose accounts for a majority of that difference. Shepherds, rotties, and even pits are brought home to "protect" and "guard". As such, they are put in a backyard and left. Unsocialized, uncontrolled, and often illtreated. To blame the breed in those cases when it is the owner who is failing is wrong. But that's what happens.

I don't disagree with what you posted, especially the shamefulness of keeping a dog as a glorified yard ornament. But the second study BCSnob posted contradicts the belief that bites from protective breeds are more common. According to it dogs who were obtained for "companionship and other reasons excepting protection" were 2.21 times more likely to bite than dogs obtained for "protection and other reasons excepting companionship."

I suspect that's related to the amount of time the dogs spent interacting with humans. Less time equals less chance of a bite occurring. Dogs who are kept in a backyard often get little/no human interaction, which limits the chance of a bite occurring.

The study goes on to state that dogs who spent 13-24 hours a day inside were about twice as likely to bite as those that spent 1-13 hours a day inside,and that both groups of dogs were at higher risk of biting than dogs who weren't allowed inside at all. Again, more time for interaction=more chance of a bite occurring.

(Sorry for not quoting directly from the study. I tried many times and different ways but the system kept saying the formatting was invalid, no matter what I did.)

Amount of time interacting has an impact, but PROPER interaction is a much more important factor. What studies never show is how the person was interacting with the dog before they got bit. We're they teasing the dog, scaring the dog, abusing the dog. If asked, they would all say "no, it just bit me out of nowhere". I suspect in 98 percent of those instances that was a lie.