question about camping with a pittbull
The wife and I just bought a camper and want to get back into camping. This time around we have two dogs. Both are rescue "mutts" and one is part Pitt. First campground I called to make a reservation ...
Forum Discussion
I have no dog in this fight. I like them all and try not to be a breedist.
But I always find it very interesting in these threads that so many dispute bite statistics that implicate PBs and other medium/large dogs and in the same sentence or paragraph state emphatically that small dogs bite more, with no source or statistic whatsoever to support that. So alleging one set of statistics is wrong is fine, but pulling your own statistics out of thin air with no sourcing at all other than "because I say so" is true. Right.
Lack of critical thinking skills is a thing, as apparently is wishful thinking.
Now I know--multiple people will chime in now and list all their anecdotal experience that "proves" their claim right. To that I say an anecdote is just an anecdote, and it's not likely any of us has enough experience to make a statistically significant sampling.
My own anecdotal experience -- As someone who has volunteered in rescue for decades, I've been nipped and outright bitten by dogs of all sizes, and by more than a few cats (whose bites are the worst). Thankfully only one of those bites required medical attention and stitches.. And yes, that was by a dog who weighed in around 80 pounds. I didn't hold the bite against her, she was a very scared dog and I did something I shouldn't have. Matter of fact, I ended up adopting her. But that was long before all the breed bans and insurance issues. Would I do it again? Probably not. She was listed as a mix of one of the breeds that would now make getting insurance a challenge, and I'm past the age of wanting to deal with hassles like that. Plus in today's climate she would no doubt have been euthanized. Sigh.
But I always find it very interesting in these threads that so many dispute bite statistics that implicate PBs and other medium/large dogs and in the same sentence or paragraph state emphatically that small dogs bite more, with no source or statistic whatsoever to support that. So alleging one set of statistics is wrong is fine, but pulling your own statistics out of thin air with no sourcing at all other than "because I say so" is true. Right.
Lack of critical thinking skills is a thing, as apparently is wishful thinking.
Now I know--multiple people will chime in now and list all their anecdotal experience that "proves" their claim right. To that I say an anecdote is just an anecdote, and it's not likely any of us has enough experience to make a statistically significant sampling.
My own anecdotal experience -- As someone who has volunteered in rescue for decades, I've been nipped and outright bitten by dogs of all sizes, and by more than a few cats (whose bites are the worst). Thankfully only one of those bites required medical attention and stitches.. And yes, that was by a dog who weighed in around 80 pounds. I didn't hold the bite against her, she was a very scared dog and I did something I shouldn't have. Matter of fact, I ended up adopting her. But that was long before all the breed bans and insurance issues. Would I do it again? Probably not. She was listed as a mix of one of the breeds that would now make getting insurance a challenge, and I'm past the age of wanting to deal with hassles like that. Plus in today's climate she would no doubt have been euthanized. Sigh.
