Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs

The the usual suspects have come out in force to criticize the San Antonio Dog Bite Study recently released by the University Hospital and defame the authors because the image painted of their beloved pit bull is not quite in sync with their idealized version.

Study authors

John K. Bini, MD

Stephen M. Cohn, MD

Shirley M. Acosta, RN, BSN,

Marilyn J. McFarland, RN, MS

Mark T. Muir, MD

Joel E. Michalek, PhD

The TRISAT Clinical Trials Group, include trauma faculty members:

D. Dent, M. Corneille, S. Wolf. D. Mueller, B. Eastridge, G. Goodwiler, J. Gourlas, J. Oh; M. Bohnenblust, K. McBride and biostatistician C. Lounden.

click their names to view their impressive resumés

Excerpt from Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs:

Dog bites are a serious public health concern in the United States and across the world. They result in substantial emotional and physical trauma and in a substantial economic cost to the victims and to society. Fortunately, fatal dog attacks are rare, but there seems to be a distinct relationship between the severity and lethality of an attack and the breed of dog responsible. The unacceptable actuarial risk associated with certain breeds of dogs (specifically, pit bulls) must be addressed.

Go to Dogsbite.org for a full review of this important study.

DECEIVE, INVEIGLE, OBFUSCATE

“You find out a lot of information when you deal with the circumstances. That leads you down a different road on what causes the bites and attacks and it's not the breed of dog. It's usually the people who are involved and the surrounding situation that's involved.” Brent Toellner

BRENT TOELLNER, the man who makes his living convincing people to purchase things they don't need, can't afford and are sometimes harmful, told nbc action news, 'it's not the dog, it's the owner'. There's one way to test that theory. Take any serious pit bull mauling and substitute other breeds. Take 85 yr old Rosie Humphreys for example. Rosie and her small poodle were killed by BRIAN PENNINGTON'S loose purebred american pit bull terrier during a routine daily walk. Now try substituting golden retriever in that sentence. How about dachshund? collie? Absurd, isn't it? If breed is truly irrelevant and the problem is truly irresponsible owners, then ANY breed of dog owned by BRIAN PENNINGTON would have yielded the same deadly result.

TOELLNER'S criticisms go into more detail on his blog. One of the criticisms is valid but that does not invalidate the study. My issue with the study is the citing of AKC registered dogs. The APBT, the breed that makes up the bulk of "pit bulls" is not recognized in the AKC registry and not all pit bulls involved in fatal attacks are purebred. The inclusion of AKC numbers only opens the door for criticism. Though their method is accepted in academic circles, I would have preferred the authors left that data out.

TOELLNER has a long list of complaints; lack of peer review, small sample, the use of animal people and dogsbite.org data (congratulations guys!), and the fact that the authors failed to consult with animal behaviorists and with ms dog bite herself, KAREN DELISE. These are major flaws in his mind that invalidate the study, in HIS mind. TOELLNER praised the authors for stating the obvious, pit bulls do not have locking jaws or an exceptionally powerful bite, but then admits that he is puzzled that the authors still came to the conclusion that pit bulls posed a greater danger than other dogs. At the end of this blog post, pit bull experts DIANE JESSUP and CARL SEMEMCIC will explain why pits are more dangerous.

I find it rather amusing that TOELLNER vigorously condemns the San Antonio University Hospital study, yet he finds no fault with the self report questionnaire study that found dachshunds to be the "biggest biters".

KAREN DELISE (a former vet tech), the great neo cortex's official condemnation of the study begins with the fact that SURGEONS have dared to express an opinion about dangerous dogs. Those opinions are reserved for herself and handful of highly trained gifted supreme beings endowed with mystical powers. DELISE thinks surgeons should stick with surgery. I can certainly relate to that sentiment, I always find myself thinking along those lines whenever the nutter lawyers like LEDY VANKAVAGE, DEBRA BRESCH, LAURA ALLEN, NATHAN WINOGRAD, KEVIN THOMASON open their mouths about animals. They should stay out of the animal AND medical business.

The vet tech writes "Those, whose professional lives are spent with pets and their owners, have been consistent in their recommendations: education of adults and children concerning dogs and dog behavior; and humane care custody and control of all dogs." This cited quote from DELISE is attributed to Texas vet BONNIE BEAVER who under oath testified in 1991, "By its origin, a pit bull is a fighting dog that takes very little stimulous to initiate aggression, and it will continue to fight regardless of what happens" and "Pit bulldogs have been responsible for about 70 percent of the deaths of humans killed by dogs since 1979."

No critique of this study would be complete without the classic pit bull sleight of hand trick, Find The Pit Bull. "There is robust evidence that guesses even by animal professionals of the breed or breeds that make up dogs whose ancestry is not known to them correlate extremely poorly with DNA analyses of the same dogs." Rule number #2 in the pit bull advocacy handbook, ALWAYS cast doubt on breed identification!

The vet tech continues "The authors seem to have begun their research with a belief regarding “pit bull” dogs, and then exploited the tools of epidemiology to legitimize that belief." ALL science starts with a belief. The belief that scientists go into research without any preconceived notions is absurdly naive. The former vet tech/"research director" fails to recognize that ALL SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY BEGINS WITH A HYPOTHESIS which states a belief or expectation. Without a belief, expectation or hypothesis, it is impossible to conduct scientific inquiry!!! Karen, objectivity in science is an illusion and only unethical researchers lie to their audiences and themselves with fantastic claims of absolute detachment and neutrality.

"The illusion of objectivity is most powerful when its victims believe themselves to be free of it." Rupert Sheldrake

The evil genius makes a big deal about the percentage of children in emergency rooms. She claims only 2% of all child visits to the E.R are for dog bites, not 20% as the San Antonio University Hospital surgeons suggest. But the vet tech's only accomplishment is exposing herself as JANE BERKEY'S hired gun and the vet tech only succeeds at fooling her gullible drones with the attack on the authors' one in five visits. A 1998 AMA study, (which you can find at dogsbite.org along with lots of other studies and great information), found that 23% of the children who visit the emergency room, are there for dog bites, in other words - roughly one in five.

*I was extremely disappointed that KAREN DELISE didn't take this opportunity to expand on her theory of the meteorologic effects on dog aggression. Oh well, maybe next time.

JIM CROSBY also had plenty to say about the study. The most surprising criticism came in the form of doubting the number of pit bulls shot and killed. The authors of the San Antonio University Hospital study claim that 1.5 pit bulls are shot and killed each day. I tracked shootings/stabbings from 10.07.09-10.19.10 and came up with 631 shooting/stabbing incidences. (Dogsbite.org tracked pit bull shootings from 2008-2009 and has come up with similar numbers.) The overwhelming majority of incidences that I documented were shootings opposed to stabbings and the overwhelming majority of dogs were "pit bulls". Of course not all were killed but I don't have a hard time believing that 546 pit bulls are shot to death each year, especially when you consider that only a fraction of the shootings receive media coverage. Pit bull advocate PAT MILLER states the media reports 250-300 dogs are shot by police each year and estimates another 1000 shootings that are not picked up by the media. That is 3.56 per day, shot by JUST the police! MILLER credits her data to ASPCA's RANDALL LOCKWOOD.

Uncharacteristically, WHITEWASH JIMMY expressed empathy for the human victims when he criticized the authors for including the "flashy but irrelevant" statistic; 94% of the attacks were unprovoked, adding "Small children do not have the capacity to knowingly provoke a dog. Older kids should be given the benefit of the doubt unless observed tormenting a dog."Traditionally, pit nutters search desperately outside of DNA to explain and excuse pit bull aggression. Their first line of defense is always - the dog was provoked. Congratulations JIMMY, I believe this is a pit nutter first! And i will be sure to credit you in the future.

WHITEWASH JIMMY'S analysis of the surgeons' study goes above and beyond the picayune by pointing to an age error of a victim. The authors claim a victim was 11 months old while the "well covered" attack by the media reported the victim to be 7 months. "A small error-but a factual error that knocks one more pebble from a crumbling edifice. You would think that an attending physician might just know how old his patient was." Funny how the pit bull advocates always caution us against believing the media when it comes to dog attacks and pit bulls, yet CROSBY is steadfast in his belief that the media reported the victim's age correctly and the surgeons reported incorrectly. laughable.

WHITEWASH JIMMY attempted to bring his small band of zealous devotees to their knees in awe. Thumping his superior on scene fatal attack investigator chest, he points out that the dog responsible for the December 2008 death of 62 yr old Chester Jordan in Muncie, Indiana was in fact a Dogo Argentino gripping dog. But hey, in his generous spirit, he would give the authors the benefit of the doubt and call the dogo a pit bull. I don't track fatal attacks and I don't follow them closely, so I consulted with people who do and who I value the opinions of, Merritt Clifton and Colleen Lynn. The attack was in fact in November, NOT December. A small error-but a factual error that knocks one more pebble from a crumbling edifice. You would think that an on site investigator might just know what month he traveled to Indiana. Colleen's memory of that attack was just as clear as if it happened yesterday. She remembered seeing the news footage of an unbloodied white dog running around in the background while the authorities removed the two bloodied brindle pit dogs from the home. Colleen also remembered BRENT TOELLNER first positing that the "killer" white dog may have been a dogo or an ambull. And sure enough, there it is. And here are the two bloody brindle bulldogs.

Thank you Colleen!

My absolute favorite part of mr canine aggression expert's critique of the San Antonio University Hospital dog bite study, was the final sentence: "Shame on them, shame on the authors, and especially shame on the peer review committee that should have done basic fact checking before publication." This statement comes from the man who looks to KAREN DELISE as his mentor! Click HERE and HERE to see how well DELISE performs basic fact checking.

note: ALL of the links to WHITEWASH JIMMY'S references are conveniently dead and were directed to this page.

LEDY VANKAVAGE'S attack on the San Antonio study was addressed in detail HERE, but I have a few thoughts of my own to add. LEDY is very good, maybe the best at rallying the pit nutter troops over at change.org and stretching or misinterpreting the truth, I can't tell which. Perhaps a poll is needed to help me determine whether she is morally corrupt or intellectually bankrupt. to quote LEDY, "One glaring example of the report's shoddy work that they cite is that the authors state that one in every five children visits an emergency room because of a dog bite."That is quite different from what the authors ACTUALLY wrote, "One of every 5 emergency room visits by children is related to dog bites." If you do not understand the difference between these two statements then you must immediately leave this blog and go back to school. I also have to wonder if we just witnessed the birth of a lie or if researchers should take this as a sign for the need to dumb down the language of future studies for easier consumption by pit bull advocates.

VANKAVAGE, DELISE et al feel that doctors are not qualified to make statements about dog dangerousness. I think emergency room medical staff, plastic surgeons and first responders are the MOST qualified to make these statements. We are talking about HUMAN injury and death after all.

Who are these people and WHY should anyone take them seriously?

Meet no-kill/pit bull activist and marketing/advertising whiz BRENT TOELLNER who has not an ounce of medical school behind him yet feels qualified to lead the debate on public policy regarding dangerous dogs!

Meet the great prestidigitator KAREN DELISE, former vet tech, founder and director of "research" for the National Canine Research Council, a subsidiary of JANE BERKEY'S blatant pit bull advocacy organization, the ANIMAL FARM FOUNDATION.

Meet JIM CROSBY, the "lone wolf" whitewasher who feels that he ALONE has more expertise combined (as a dog trainer and former police officer and FAILED -- FIRED -- AC officer) than the impressive group of 17 listed at the top of this page. Hardly a "lone wolf" gig like a typical Crosby undertaking. This professional whitewasher claims that chihuahuas are as dangerous as pit bulls. GOOD JOB JIMMY! You've never looked more stupid or more petty than you do today!

Meet LEDY VANKAVAGE, the senior legislative analyst (a paid lobbyist) for the Kanab, Utah animal rights group known as Best Friends. This attorney and life long pit bull owner feels qualified to lead the argument on public policy regarding dangerous dogs!

MORE TEXAS DOG BITE STUDIES

The results of the San Antonio University Hospital dog bite study validates previous Texas dog bite data. The state of Texas has a decent history of documenting dog bites. In 2000, Dr David Blocker presented a paper on dog bites from Bexar County (San Antonio - the exact same region that involved the University Hospital study) found the Odds ratios for each of the five most commonly biting dog breeds versus all others presented similar findings (Table 30). The odds of a Pit Bull in Bexar County causing a bite were 5 times greater than the odds for all other breeds combined, at 4.9 to 1. Chow Chows and Rottweilers also had odds ratios significantly greater than the average, at 2.9 to 1 and 1.8 to 1, respectively. The odds ratios for German Shepherds and Labrador Retrievers were significantly lower than the average, at 0.67 to 1 and 0.26 to 1.

Medical doctors Stephen F. Viegas, Jason H. Calhoun and Jon Mader published an article on the savage pit bull attack of an 83 yr old man that resulted in extensive injuries requiring an amputation and later died in the Volume 84 November 1988 issue of Texas Medicine, Pit bull attack: case report and literature review.

"During the one-year period between June 1986 and June 1987, 14 people were killed by dogs in the United States. Ten of those 14 deaths are attributed to pit bulls. Thus, 71% of the deaths during that period were attributed to a type of dog that accounts for 1% of the US dog population (8,10,22)."

and

"Most breeds do not repeatedly bite their victims; however, a pit bull attack has been compared to a shark attack and often results in multiple bites and extensive soft tissue loss (3,10). Although the teeth of dogs are not very sharp, they can exert a force of 200 to 450 psi. Pit bulls inflict more serious bite wounds than do other breeds because they tend to attack the deep muscles, hold on, and shake (3,10)."

and in conclusion

"With this trend and the increasing population of dogs in general, and in pit bulls in particular, the occurrence of cases similar to the one reported in this article may increase."

Hmmm, 71% of the people killed by dogs from june 86 - june 87, were killed by pit bulls is consistent with DR BEAVER'S 1991 sworn testimony. Weren't the 1980's supposed to be the decade of the doberman?

The Texas Department of Health used to track animal attacks and submit yearly summaries.

The number and percentage of each breed of dog involved was noted...

As well as the number and percentage of each breed for attacks so serious, hospitalization was required.

Did you notice how the pit bull was number 4 for dog bites but jumped to the # 1 spot for hospitalizations?

I don't have the summaries for 2000 and 2001 but at some point the Department of Health stopped parsing out the percentage of breeds that required hospitalizations. Pit nutter tantrums, I suspect. Those tantrums most likely put an end to this tracking of animal attacks/bites altogether, as 2002 seems to be the last year for these bite summaries.

You can read the 1999 and 2002 Severe Animal Attack and Bite Surveillance Summaries HERE and HERE.

PIT BULLS ARE DIFFERENT!

Pit bulls differ from other dogs in not only HOW they bite, but WHERE they bite. This difference results in catastrophic damage to the unlucky person who happens to be on the receiving end of their gaping maws of doom.

But i don't expect you to take the word of a hater.

Read the professional opinion of former animal control officer, pit bull advocate, owner, breeder, trainer, historian, author, expert DIANE JESSUP as she pontificates on pit bulls and bite work in protection sports:

There are aspects of ring sport which put the bulldog at a disadvantage when competing against sheepdogs like shepherds and malinois. The sport requires the dog, at times, to bite and then quickly release and retreat - something no true bulldog is willing to do. Also, biting the leg, which is considered preferable, takes more training for a bulldog who will naturally shun the extremities in favor of the more "courageous" bites to the body. A bulldog is bred to grip the head of its prey - whereas a sheepdog nips the legs. Therefore sheepdog breeds have a natural advantage in this regard.

and

Another very real detriment to the sport are those few decoys, (so far I have found them only in Western Canada) who are so terrified of pit bulls that they treat them with prejudice.

Gee, I can't imagine why bite work decoys would be prejudiced against gripping dogs, I mean aside from the tendency to courageously lunge for the FACE!

Perhaps fighting dog officiando CARL SEMENCIC can shine some light on this.

(Gladiator Dogs, page 19)

"Photographer and veterinarian, Markus Rogen with Tough Guy's Baby, a protection dog that can destroy the arm guard of an attack suit with one bite (the same arm guards that can last 10 years with a German Shepherd.)"

click image to view larger

The Pit Bull Hoax: The ATTS

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Mark Twain

"Pit bulls score higher than ______"

As soon as the topic of pit bulls hits the comment sections, the pit bull apologia goes on the defensive and more often than not, the ATTS (American Temperament Testing Society) is the weapon of choice from their arsenal of myths. Typically the pit bull's ATTS scores will be inflated to unbelievable heights. It is not uncommon to read "pit bulls score higher than ANY other breed." A quick check of the available on demand ATTS statistics will bust that myth straight away. But the pit bull does score higher than many popular, safe, family friendly breeds of dogs. How could the dog responsible for roughly 50% of all fatal attacks, score better than Lassie?

This blog post spells out how and why and touches on the following aspects: The history of the test, the test requirements, the test itself, the evaluation, criticisms of the test, junk science, and examples -- in their own words -- of pit bull owners who acknowledge the test's biases and invalidity.

Introduction

Pit bull advocates have much invested in the ATTS myth. They clutch to these scores and parade them around as though they were the definitive tool that proves that their dogs are not only safe to be in the community but SAFER than most other dog breeds. From the NCRC to Best Friends to Badrap, from Jane Berkey to Diane Jessup to Leslie Haller to Adrien P, they all extol the virtues of the mighty ATTS. They mislead the public and preach the superiority of pit bulls based on this flawed test and its perverted results that are further exaggerated when regurgitated ad nauseam by the pit bull ideologues.

Researching the American Temperament Testing Society (the actual organization) was quite an education in and of itself. Information was difficult to obtain, for example the names of the board of directors and testers were not easy to come by. I finally found the names of the board of directors through the Missouri secretary of state website, but good luck finding the names of testers. Unearthing underground dog fighting information would be an easier task.

Suspicious secret society aside, the problem with the ATTS is complex and any discussion of the problematic statistics should begin with the inherent bias of the test, the testers, the testees and the myths surrounding what exactly this test measures.

schutzhund photography

ATTS History

The temperament test was developed by Alfons Ertelt in 1977. Mr Ertelt was not an animal behaviorist, he worked in the print industry but his passion was dogs and he was involved in schutzhund. (schutzhund is a dog sport that mirrors the training of police dog work and it is dominated by german shepherds) The ATTS test was initially intended to test working dogs for jobs such as police work. The test favors bold dogs, dogs that need to face danger head on without hesitation and fear. Courage was desired and rewarded, timidity was not. The ATTS favors dogs like pit bulls over dogs like collies. It is important to note, the test does not evaluate dogs for "pet" suitability. It comes as no surprise that when you look at the numbers tested by breed, four of the top five breeds (5357 rottweilers, 3038 german shepherds, 1574 dobermans, 968 mixed breeds, and 893 bouviers) excel in schutzhund. Presently, their website states the ATTS was established to "work for the betterment of all breeds of dogs." Mr Ertelt left the ATTS a few years after its inception and in 1983 formed the German Shepherd Dog Schutzhund Club of Los Angeles. In 1990 Carl Herkstroeter, his wife Carolyn, and Harriet Ann Pahlmann and Margaret B Pahlmann incorporated the ATTS into a for profit business in the state of Missouri. One year later, they created the non-profit. Records indicate there has been only a few board changes over the last 20 years.

Test Requirements

Dogs must be at least 18 months of age and on a 6 ft lead. The handler is not allowed to talk to or correct the dog. If the dog fails, it is allowed to retake the test after 5 months, but only one retest is allowed. It is not clear if or how this is monitored and enforced.

Entry level testers are called Apprentice Testers and they must be at least 21 years of age and active in dog sport or employed in the veterinary field for at least the past 5 years. As the testers become more experienced, they can work their way up through the ranks.

Provisional Testers

Temperament Testers

Provisional Chief Testers

Certified Chief Tester

Teaching Chief Tester

Since the testers are required to have a great deal of dog sport experience, the testers are often very involved in their breed clubs, therefore the testers are often evaluating their friends and acquaintances and usually the breed of their choice. In other words, they are testing dogs that they have a vested interest in seeing pass the test.

The Test

The test takes approximately 10 minutes and at least 3 ATTS trained evaluators score the dogs. The test is usually sponsored by breed clubs, most often rottweiler clubs but other large powerful breed clubs like german shepherds, pit bulls and akitas sponsor the test as well. The sponsor can request the test be closed to other breeds or open to all. It is easy to see how a lab or a collie would be at a serious disadvantage at a pit bull sponsored test being evaluated by people who not only don't possess breed specific knowledge of labs or collies but also might harbor resentment towards the other more popular and socially accepted breeds.

The dogs are on a 6 ft leash. The owner/handler is forbidden to speak, give commands or corrections. As the dog progresses through the test, it becomes increasingly more stressful. The dogs' reactions are measured toward a neutral stranger and a friendly stranger. The dog/handler then progress to hidden noises, first the metal bucket with coins then gunshots. From there the dog has an umbrella open suddenly nearby and then walks across plastic sheeting and wire grating. The final phase of the test measures a dog's self protective/aggressive behavior by exposing the dog first to a weirdly dressed non-threatening stranger, then a threatening stranger and finally an aggressive stranger.

If a dog panics and does not recover or if the dog shows strong avoidance or unprovoked aggression, it fails. Re: aggression, breed specific temperament and the prior experience and training of the dogs are taken into account. The website states that aggressive responses during the final phase of the test is okay for a dog with schutzhund training but an untrained husky displaying aggression toward the stranger may fail. It is obvious that these judges possess far too much discretion in these tests. Some pit bull owners report that their pit bulls passed when it launched aggressively at the stranger while other pit bulls have passed when it barely acknowledged the stranger. Passing or failing is completely dependent upon the whims of the testers.

The handlers are advised to come early so they can do a walk through of the test, without their dogs.

The Evaluation

There are a total of 10 subtests and each test is scored by at least 3 testers who rate the dog on a scale of 0-10. All dogs start with a score of 5 on each subtest. Points are added to the score of 5 for the dogs who perform positively and points are deducted for dogs who perform negatively. A score of zero on one test is a failure, even if the dog scored a 10 on each of the other 9 subtests. And oddly enough, a dog would pass if it received a score of 1 on each test. If the testers are not in agreement, the majority rules. Click here for a more in depth explanation of the 0-10 rating scale. Since more often than not, these tests are sponsored by breed clubs, and tested by club officers, there is an inherent bias in the testers to see their breed of choice pass and others fail.

ATTS Tests

Current ATTS scores for pit bull type dogs:

american pit bull 86%

american bulldog 84.8%

american staffordshire 83.9%

bull terrier 90.4%

staffordshire bull terrier 89.6%

Current ATTS scores for a few popular breeds of dogs in America:

cocker spaniel 81.9%

collie 79.7%

beagle 80.3%

chihuahua 71.1%

labrador retriever 92.3%

golden retriever 84.6%

german shepherd 84.2%

jack russell 84.1%

mutt 86%

pomeranian 75.8%

pug 90.9%

standard poodle 86%

Of the 30,000+ dogs tested by the ATTS to date, 82.4% have passed.

*The breed of dog with the overall lowest passing score was the skye terrier at 37.5%.

The most "aggressive" dog in America, yet it didn't make the Clifton report.

Test Criticisms

Anyone with a superficial understanding of scientific method and what constitutes good science, should be able to immediately recognize the inherent problems with this test.

First and foremost is the issue of what exactly does the test measure? The ATTS website claims to measure stability, shyness, aggressiveness, friendliness, protectiveness, self-preservation. In theory, the testers consider the following during the test:

The breed of the dog (hereditary purpose)

The training the dog has received

The dog’s age

The dog’s gender

Whether it has been spayed or neutered

The dog’s physical health (dog in season)

Whether it is a house dog or kennel dog

Yet the pit bull advocates present the stats in such a way as to imply that higher scores equal less aggression and lower scores equal more aggression. According to Herkstroeter, “Just because a certain percentage of dogs in a certain breed fail, this does not necessarily indicate aggression. Dogs fail for other reasons, such as strong avoidance. If you look at our statistics just from a perspective of aggression or non-aggression, they can be very misleading.” Herkstroeter states that 95% of the dogs that fail, do so because they lack confidence to approach the weirdly dressed stranger or walk on the strange surface. The remaining 5% fail because they take longer than 45 seconds to recover from the gunshot or the umbrella. Still pit bull advocates continue to distort the meaning of the test.

Second, as per ATTS website: "Comparing scores with other dogs is not a good idea" and the test "takes into consideration each breed's inherent tendencies". Cocker spaniels are evaluated against a cocker spaniel standard, not against german shepherds (or at least in theory, they are not supposed to), yet pit bull advocates would have you believe that all dogs are evaluated against one another.

The third troubling aspect of this test is not only the lack of a random sample but what appears to be pit bull advocates openly conspiring to groom test candidates and cherry pick only those individual dogs that are likely to pass. This is a conscious decision done for the sole purpose of inflating the scores to improve the pit bull's image.

The fourth major problem is in the inherent bias of the testers. Pit bull owners, breeders and advocates are in the position to pass or fail dogs that are under heavy criticism for what their critics perceive as their innate viciousness. As you will see, the testers have much discretion and a vested interest in the outcomes of the tests and they do not apply the rules fairly or consistently. There is no quality control to ensure that the testers are consistent in how they grade dogs' behavior.

Fifth, the test acknowledges that breed of dog (hereditary of purpose) is factored into the dog's performance and score, yet dogs are not tested in the presence of other dogs. This is especially critical with dogs that were bred to fight.

Sixth, the ATTS apparently does not require papers for purebred dogs. It seems that you can report any breed you like and do not need to provide any registry papers to prove it. One thing I find especially interesting is the flexibility around the issue of purity in pit bulls. When pit bulls attack, they are mixes but when they pass the ATTS, they are purebred, no questions asked. Just last week, Drayton Michaels made a point to say that most pit bulls were in fact not purebred pit bulls. This is another favored defense tactic when pit bull attacks hit the news media. In my experience reading all of the pit bull forums for ATTS information, discussion about the test is non-existent among the game-dog.com demographic. This group of pit bull owners is obsessed with bloodlines and pedigrees, and these dogmen do not even broach the subject of temperament testing.

Seventh, the handlers are familiar with the test, they not only know what to expect, they practice it with their dogs. In the real world, things don't work out that way and much of a dog's reaction can be based on the handler's reaction to the real world "stressful" events.

Eighth, The American Temperament Testing Society is not an impartial, scientific organization discovering "truth". They openly state their position on their website:

"Because of breed-specific dog legislation and negative publicity associated with many breeds of dogs, temperament testing has assumed an important role for today's dog fancier. The ATTS Temperament Test provides breeders a means for evaluating temperament and gives pet owners insight into their dog's behavior. It can have an impact on breeding programs and in educating owners about their dog's behavioral strengths and weaknesses as well as providing a positive influence on dog legislation."

Junk Science

The test and the testers discriminate against timidity and favor courage and aggression, although they do not openly admit to this. The test does not measure any exact personality trait that can be quantified. In theory, the test measures the dogs' responses to random events, (sometimes heavily practiced random events) and theoretically, the testers are to evaluate dogs within their own breed and not against other breeds. It will become obvious to the reader that the testers are inconsistent with their application of the testing guidelines. In addition, these random events have little to do with the real world events. The organization, the test, the testers and the testees are all motivated by powerful forces, such as BSL and will do anything to achieve their desired outcomes. The test looks good in theory but the humans that apply the theory are self interested and therefore fallible. That fallibility produces unscientific results.

The ATTS temperament test is scientifically invalid and unreliable. The test can not reliably predict how a dog will behave in the real world.

Pit bull apologists love to cite beloved breeds of dogs who score lower than the APBT. But the reality is collie owners are not spending hours online seeking advice from other collie owners on how to pass the test, or spending a year preparing their dogs for this test. Collie mix owners are not quizzing testers about whether or not their dogs can slip in under the radar as purebreds. Collie owners are not prescreening their dogs. Collie owners are not hiring ATTS experienced dog handlers to test their dogs. Collie owners are not cherry picking only those candidates that they think will pass the test. If they did, their breed would score higher than 79.4%. Any breed would do better under these artificial conditions. But collie owners don't view their dogs as a cult religion and the ATTS as a bible. Most people owning normal breeds of dogs view this test as a fun way to spend the morning with their dogs. The pit bull community views this test as a get out jail free card. There is a strong push by pit bull advocates to have dogs who have passed the ATTS eligible for home owners insurance and access to housing that specifically excludes certain breeds. Take for example the military ban on pit bulls, rottweilers and others. In the instance of the Marines, owners of these dogs had 60 calendar days to successfully pass a "nationally recognized temperament test." The City of San Francisco, which has a mandatory pit bull sterilization law, allows pit bulls that pass the ATTS to breed (Section 44.1).

This "truth" design for t-shirts, was created by pit bull talk member mnp13 and is available at cafe press for $25. Please note that mnp13 is a pit bull owner who has witnessed up close and personal how flawed the test is.

In their own words

What pit bull owners say in public is much different from what they say to each other in "private".

The link to Diane Jessup advising fellow thepitbull-place.com members to enter only dogs that will pass the ATTS, was killed after I posted it on craven desires. Please alert me to any dead links and I will replace with pdfs and/or screen shots.

click to view at 100%

Pit bull rescuer, owner and advocate Ellena Thomas of the pacific northwest pit bull rescue explains the ATTS.

"Again, its so the judges know if your dog is trained in anything. For example, the last step of the test requires an aggressive stranger to approach. A protection trained dog should aggress, but a correct-temperament APBT should not.

Basically, the ATTS is an instinct test. All breeds are judged according to their proper temperament mandated for their breed. A Mastiff is allowed to be forward, assertive and in certain sitiuations, aggressive. An APBT should be friendly, a little wary with noises, quick to recover and generally happy."

Thomas' explanation contradicts this individual's experience. Here pitbulltalk member Tiger describes her ATTS and her violation of the test rules while still passing.

"Doja did great and passed with flying colors. I was so proud of her.

She was the only dog tested there today that wanted to eat the threatening stranger - so she got high marks for that.

It was funny - most of the other dogs (Belgians included) only looked at him, or ignored him, Even when he was hollering and bashing a stick on the ground. But Doja hit the end of the lead like the little freight train she is and was telling him that he had best stay far away from her Mommy NOW!! Some of the people watching (including some of the testers) actually applauded a bit when she did that."

"While we were int the ring waiting to start Dexter decided to pee! Luckily none of the testers saw it but everyone else did and they were laughing and saying "shhhhh...dont say anything!"

"Yes, he peed on the umbrella. And Rob captured it in a photo. I'm still so embarrassed. I was sure they'd fail us for that. But apparently they're not looking for manners in this test--just responses to various stimuli." "she didn't even know it was happening till after I yelled NOOOOO!"

"another pit bull mix dog that was with us that day, paige, barked and lunged and kicked up the dust till the guy was gone, and she's not protection trained at all. she passed just fine, though. they actually want the dog to identify threatening behavior--your dog gets lower marks if it fails to respond at all, like doc."

apbtmom76

My Penny has passed this and Orion will be taking this test in a few weekends. It is a good test and they are linient about somethings.

Some testers are sometimes lenient on some aspects of the test on some dogs. It really depends on the whims and the motives of the tester.

mnp13 comments on an ambull that should have failed but didn't.

At the test that I brought Ruby and Connor to an American Bulldog was was trained as a "Professional Personal Protection Dog" took a h-u-g-e stress poop before the first station and then turned sideways to the threatening stranger and ignored him. There is no way that dog should have passed

pitbulltalk mnp13

The CGC is meant to be a test of training and manners, the TT is meant to be a test of temperament. ideally you don't "train the test" for the TT.

you really don't need to worry about that because when you fill out your application for the test they ask you if your dog is trained in schutzhund or other sports, and they take that into account when evaluating. so if the dog lights up at the stranger more than a "regular" dog might, that will be considered.

another pit bull mix dog that was with us that day, paige, barked and lunged and kicked up the dust till the guy was gone, and she's not protection trained at all. she passed just fine, though. they actually want the dog to identify threatening behavior--your dog gets lower marks if it fails to respond at all, like doc.

If a schutzhund trained Ambull fails to respond aggressively to the stranger, it passes but if a non trained husky responds it fails. The testers are not evaluating dogs consistently or fairly.

pitbullmamaliz

That's how it is supposed to be done. However, the chief judge at my test deducted points from Inara because she "wasn't a good guard dog." (his exact words) Apparently he didn't study the chapter where it says pits are not known for their guardian skills

pbf voodoo on the importance of practicing for the test

"I've been working with Champagne as well. She was super scared of the umbrella at first but now she tries to play with it and it's one of her favorite toys."

Experienced "responsible" pit bull owner, ATTS tester Leslie Haller advises pitbulltalk member hey21jude on the ATTS.

"I'm an ATTS provisional tester. Dexter would certainly pass the neutral and friendly stranger parts of the test if he acts like he did when I met him. I believe they record mixed breeds as mixed breeds. You can certainly get away with calling him an apbt."

Leslie Haller is a school teacher.

hey21jude replies

"Hi Leslie! Glad to hear he would at least pass part of the test. I think we'd do OK for the other parts too. As long as I'm with him, he doesn't go into "panic mode". I would love to sign him up as an APBT just to get another passed test for the stats(If we pass).

Thanks again for all the info guys!"

pitbullmamaliz describes how her pit Inara barely passed the ATTS.

So, I then go sit in a chair and eavesdrop as best I can while the testers compare notes. The only comment I catch is one tester gave Inara a low score for the gunshots because she "looked at her mommy which is a fear response." Well, she's a dog who's never heard gunshots before. I thought it was great she looked to me, but they want the dog to act like you're not even there. I guess they wanted her to go towards the gunshots to investigate. Whatever, I liked that she looked at me for direction.

Then the chief tester came over. He gave me the thumbs up, so I got excited and said, "she passed???" He said yes and then paused. He then told me that "she's not bad, but she's not good." Um, what? He very snottily told me that I have a horrible guard dog. I told him that I didn't get her to be a guard dog. It took all I had to not ask if he was aware that this breed is not supposed to be a good guard dog, but I didn't want to piss off the guy with my test. He then tells me that Inara has no attention span and desperately needs some obedience classes. He sighed and said, "well, she's still young, so she SHOULD get better. Hopefully she'll get better."

Based on the chief tester's comments, i would guess that this pit bull was tested among a GSD, rott or dobie schutzhund club and is either unaware that dogs without protection training should not be responding aggressively or doesn't care.

new pitbulltalk member tradewind introduces herself to the forum.

"My name is Monique and I live in MA near Cape Cod. I have 3 Amstaffs, 1 male and 2 females. I'm active in showing, starting out in Obedience, and I am an apprentice tester with the ATTS, and I am very active in BSL."

It is inappropriate for ATTS testers to be active in BSL.

apbtmom76 describes the appropriate response to the threatening stranger.

An acceptable raction from any dog, UNLESS it is trained n PP, is to put itself between its master and the stranger, to be on alert, to warn you but they should NOT lunge or act overly aggressive to the weird stranger

"the TT is meant to be a test of temperament. ideally you don't "train the test" for the TT."

apbtmom76 tested one of her dogs and gives advice to another pitbull-chat members.

"kris, practice with your dog and try it. I am not sure how Phoenix will do his 2nd time through and I truely don't think Orion will ever pass. He is too much of a goober."

pbf sarah

"I actually forgot and said something to Tess while I was taking her through, and it didn't affect anything (I just said "come on pup!", or something of that nature, after a station), so I wouldn't get too freaked out about the potential for forgetting to be quiet."

gsdbulldog on pre-test jitters.

"I'm still a bit nervous, so I think I'll get a friend of mine to test my dogs now and see how they respond."

bulldogbreeds member attitude about temperament tests.

oh hey, i know tt's aren't foolproof but it is a start. tt is only as good as the person doing the eval, and i have seen many (many) dogs that shouldn't pass do so, in all of the listed tt types.

Comforting, isn't it?

2005 Romanwild

"I know we can eventually beat the labradors!"

They are closing in.

2005 lisa mawson

"We are very close to having a higher % pass rate than GOLDEN RETRIEVERS! Of course this is no secret to us, but lets not KEEP it a secret!"

They set a goal and they achieved it. The pit bulls have surpassed the goldens.

pbf member Maryellen Harwelik (realpitbull.com) advises pblove on passing the umbrella test.

"have you tried giving her high value treats when she goes near the closed umbrella? work on it this way. then, open the umbrella a little bit on the floor, any time she goes near it, praise and treat.. keep doing baby steps with the umbrella until its fully opened on the floor, praise and treats for each time.. then, roll the umbrella, if she does not get scared, praise and treat.. its a slow process that should work."

"And dont be nervous, we will do a walk through that morning (be there at 8-8:30!) and talk about each step of the test to help everyone feel more comfortable with it!"

All of this practice feels like like cheating to me. This is like getting all of the answers to the test before hand.

pbf Leslie Haller

I won't test Soleil, because she'll be unnerved by the threatening stranger, and bail out early on.

Other members chime in and explain that they also will not test their dogs because they know they will fail.

pbf Red

Personally I test only pit bulls I know are going to pass , mine or belonging to other people, because if a dog does not pass it hurts the breed statistics ( although it looks like they are not updating the numbers often).

Just something to keep in mind for anyone who wants to enter their dogs...unless the animal in question can be exposed to some stimulation for an extended period of time and don't be bother by it keep him/her away in a vehicle or area that is quiet. Most people "park" their dogs by the testing field, which means that the dogs hear the gun shots, the yelling drunken man and dogs barking while waiting to be tested and that can be a significant amount of time. That is a lot for many dogs to handle, especially if they are not show dogs, dogs who compete in some sports or are used to the usual chaos in similar environments. By the time they enter the test their stress level has increased and moving from one station to the other end up with an animal who is overwhelmed or score low.Most test are held in conjunction with some kind of dog event so that is something to take in consideration.

Red is a dog trainer, experienced pit bull owner and experienced at taking the ATTS. She is also apparently an ATTS handler for hire as well, further insuring that a pit bulldog will pass the test with her confident demeanor and further skewing the test scores.

pbsmiles sarallyn

The ATTS is really helping to keep this breed in one piece... without them, i'm sure we would be in some deep sh**

good read, thanks for posting.

The pit bull apologia knows EXACTLY what it is doing. Unfortunately, the public is oblivious to what lies beneath the cut and paste propaganda scores.

Beating Lassie's Score

After reviewing this blog post and its many examples, now you know why pit bulls -- responsible for roughly 50% of all fatal attacks -- score better than Lassie. I did not come to this conclusion quickly. I spent about a year researching the ATTS. In addition to reading every ATTS related thread on every pit bull forum on the internet, I also looked into other breed forums. I found nothing on the other breed forums that even remotely resembled the machinations of the pit bull apologia.

Anyone with a high school education should be able to see the fallibilities of the ATTS, yet a few of the gifted and educated, some with advanced degrees still promote the ATTS as a test with "scientific" value.

National Canine Research Council aka the great neocortex
(When caught in a lie, the NCRC deleted this free flyer from their website after I exposed their lie here. Here is the pdf.)

Andrew Rozsa, Ph.D, medical psychologist

Scot E. Dowd, Ph.D, research scientist

Lynn M Flood, DVM

Jennifer Thomas, MA

http://www.atts.org/

"TEMPERAMENT" AND "INSTINCT" TESTING, PANACEA OR NONSENSE? Jim Engel April, 1988

Snopek, Roxanne Willems. Dangerous Dogs, Altitude Publishing: Alberta Canada, 2006

An example of a temperament test in Europe

Missouri Secretary of State

Animal People, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to June 25, 2010

U.S. Marine Corps Bans Pit Bulls and Other Breeds; Policy Affects All Privatized Housing

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO HEALTH CODE

Junk Science

Scapegoats: Part 1 - The Bloodhound

"It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." Mark Twain

In what might be the pit bull apologia’s most sinister machination of all, Jane Berkey et al are attempting to besmirch the image of the Bloodhound in an effort to elevate the image of their beloved pit fighter. On August 25, the Minnesota City Pages ran a four page discussion of dangerous dogs. And there at the bottom of page one: “Pit bulls weren’t always considered dangerous dogs—that honor has shifted from breed to breed throughout history. In the 1880s, bloodhounds tormented the populace.” This reeks of the Animal Farm Foundation, Karen Delise and Andrew Yori. Yori is on the Berkey payroll, a recipient of one of the Vick dogs and a Minnesota resident.

The best lies always possess a kernel of truth to create the illusion of credibility. Yes, before the pit bull, before the rottweiler, before the doberman or the german shepherd, the bugaboo breed was the bloodhound, the CUBAN Bloodhound and the SIBERIAN Bloodhound.

When I say the word Bloodhound, the image of a large brown & black dog with loose skin, long, pendulous ears and a plaintive howl will come to mind. A very distinctive looking dog.

When I say Cuban Bloodhound, do you see a large muscular mastiff/bulldog cross with short cropped ears and a muzzle more suitable to the function of violence and savagery? Or do you still see McGruff the crime dog? The Cuban Bloodhound is presumed to be extinct by most and information about the dog is not impossible but not easy to find.

The Cuban Bloodhound aka Spanish Bloodhound aka Southern Bloodhound aka American Bloodhound

Hilary Harmar briefly addresses the Cuban Bloodhounds in her Bloodhound History. Harmar describes the Cubans as "extremely ferocious and savage creatures" with smaller ears, pointed muzzles and very little connection to the true Bloodhounds.

The White English Bulldog Preservation Society describes Cuban Bloodhounds as similar to the Presa Canario or the Dogo Argentino, dogs that most people classify as pit bull type dogs. The WEBPS describes the dog used by the United States Army during the Seminole Indian War, “This dog depicted could easily be mistaken for an APBT, yet history records this to be a Cuban Bloodhound, known in the south today as the Brindle Bulldog.” The WEBPS claims that only the name is extinct, not the dog and that it still exists in the south as the Brindle Bulldog. The Cuban Bloodhound was not a scent hound, it bore absolutely no physical or temperamental resemblence to the true British Bloodhound. The Cuban Bloodhound was in fact a big game hunting and guarding dog, much like the Presa or the Dogo. A dog with a violent function. It was bred to be a fearless dog that used brute force to capture runaway slaves, exterminate the Seminole Indians and terrorize union soldiers.

The White English Bulldog Preservation Society contends that the Cuban Bloodhound is the “direct ancestor of the Brindle Bulldog and Old Red Bulldog, (a large, highly aggressive guard dog being red in color, and quite rare), of Louisiana and Mississippi. It is said that this Old Red Bulldog is a cross of the Cuban Bulldog and Dogue de Bordeaux, and was developed in Louisiana in the 18th and 19th centuries as a ferocious and malevolent guard dog. The Cuban Bloodhound was a key ingredient in the makeup of many guard and hunting type dogs of the south in early American history, thus the highly aggressive behavior; the notorious “mean streak;” that has followed bulldogs in American history.” NOTE: Training and environment does not follow the bulldog through history, genetics does.

The Siberian Bloodhound aka Russian Bloodhound

The descriptions of Siberian Bloodhounds that I have found vary. Some sources say it is similar to a Great Dane while another source claims it is synonymous with the Great Dane and yet another describes a St Bernard type dog. However, none of them come close to describing a TRUE Bloodhound. That’s because they were not, even though that is what the evil genius Karen Delise wants you to believe.

The Genuine English Bloodhound aka British Bloodhound

Bloodhounds made their way to the United States around 1880. The first importer of Bloodhounds was Jenks L Winchell of Fair Haven, Vermont. In 1881, Winchell retired from his New York magazine and established a Bloodhound kennel in Vermont. He was also the first president of the English Bloodhound Club in America. Bloodhounds were rare and valuable dogs at that time. Yet, as I will demomstrate later, Delise will have you believe that the rare and high priced Bloodhound, in America for less than a decade, was already terrorizing Americans. A quick check of the AKC Stud Books in 1889 reveals that only 14 Bloodhounds were registered. Taking advantage of Google yet again, reveals the value of the Bloodhound. In 1889, John Winchell of Fair Haven, Vermont purchased 2 dogs from a London police chief. The English Bloodhounds were valued at $1000 each. It seems extremely unlikely that dogs valued at $1000 in the 1880’s would not be registered with the AKC, nor would they be chained, be allowed to roam or be used as a guard dog.

Breed Confusion

There does seem to be some confusion between the different Bloodhounds back in the day but nothing like the pit bull apologia is deliberately attempting to drum up now. Part of the confusion can be attributed to the 1852 classic ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. Although nowhere in the book does Harriet Beecher Stowe mention Bloodhounds of any kind, Siberian Bloodhounds were used in the stage reproduction of the book and the vicious hounds took on a life of their own. Ironically, a quick search of the book which is available at www.gutenberg.org, yields one reference to a “hound” and two “bull-dog” references. “Legree had trained them in savageness and brutality as systematically as he had his bull-dogs; and, by long practice in hardness and cruelty, brought their whole nature to about the same range of capacities.” Notice the use of the word trained. In reality, fox hounds were initally used to track runaway slaves but they would not bite. Because the fox hound had never been bred to hunt and bite people, these hounds could not be trained, encouraged, or coerced to attack the slaves. This forced slave owners to import Cuban bloodhounds, a dog that had been bred by the Spanish to hunt and kill and that had been successfully used to terrorize natives and slaves in the Caribbean, Central and South America. It is also important to point out that Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published approximately 25 years BEFORE the first Bloodhound was imported to America. In addition to the use of Siberian bloodhounds in the stage production of Uncle Tom's Cabin, breed confusion can also be ascribed to the slave owners overemphasizing the ‘blood’ in Bloodhound to promote fear among the slaves.

Some authors describe the Cuban as a Mastiff and others describe it as a Bulldog. In all likelihood, they are all correct. The Cuban Bloodhound was bred for function not form and therefore a great deal of variation existed. All of the Cuban Bloodhound sources that I could locate agree on it’s temperament and they do not paint a pretty picture.

Walter Dyer attempted to repair the damage done to the British Bloodhound in 1917 when he wrote “The Maligned Hound” for The New Country Life. “The so-called Cuban Bloodhound which was used in Jamaica and the Southern States was not a bloodhound in the true sense of the word. He probably possessed less hound than mastiff blood, with perhaps an infusion of bulldog.” Dyer then points out that while the Cuban bloodhound was ready to “tear his victim limb from limb”, the true bloodhound would never attack. Yvette Uroshevich, a contemporary breeder of Fila Brasileros, dogs whose original function was similar to the Cuban Bloodhound writes “If a slave did escape, the Filas were used to track them down. Unlike their ancestor, the Bloodhound, the Fila Brasileiro will grab and hold at the end of the trail.”

Cuban and Siberian Bloodhound Ban

Even before the Civil War people who attempted to keep Cuban Bloodhounds for any other purpose than controlling, terrorizing and hunting slaves found these dogs to be dangerous to keep, and after the end of slavery, these dogs became useless as well as dangerous.

Jesse Edward, an English natural historian had this to say about the Cuban Bloodhound in 1858, “I had one of these Cuban bloodhounds given to me a few years ago, and finding him somewhat more ferocious than I liked, I made a present of him to a keeper in the neighbourhood. He was put into a kennel with other dogs, and soon killed some of them.”

In an article from 1870, Oliver Optic’s magazine, the Cuban Bloodhound or Southern Bloodhound is described as “The bloodhound of the south, and perhaps known best as the Cuban bloodhound, is not of the genuine breed, but is descended from the Biscayne Mastiff, and is trained to fight as well as to hunt. He is inferior to the hound in his powers of following a trail, but is bloodthirsty and cruel. Slavery found a use for these terrible dogs, and the negroes feared them more than the lash or musket of the master; and during the rebellion these hounds served only too well their masters’ inhuman commands. This article was written approximately 10 years before the British Bloodhound was imported to America and 5 years after Henry Wirz was hanged for committing civil war crimes in a Georgia Prison. Wirz used Cuban Bloodhounds against the union soldiers at the Andersonville Prison. See photo of "Spot" above.

By the 1880s people recognized that the Cuban and the Siberian Bloodhounds were too dangerous to be kept like other dogs. In 1886, the state of Massachusetts banned the Cuban and Siberian Bloodhounds:

(sections 2 and 3 are the fines and penalties for violating the law)

Six years later the law was amended to exclude English bloodhounds.

Recognition of the Genuine English Bloodhound

Scottish naturalist and canine historian Henry Downing Richardson felt the Cuban Bloodhound was not entitled to the bloodhound designation. “It is only fair that that gentle and affectionate animal – the genuine bloodhound – a dog far from being cruel or ferocious, should be distinctly separated from these, his disreputable namesakes.”

Wade Hampton, former governor, former senator and Commissioner of Railroads, noted the distinction between the Cuban Bloodhound and the true Bloodhound in 1894, “The Cuban bloodhound is a fierce, intractable dog.” “The English bloodhound, on the contrary, is a noble dog, gentle, sagacious and affectionate.” Hampton goes on to state that he has hunted with both bloodhounds and described the Cuban as “generally worthless for this purpose.”

Author of "British Dogs: Their Points, Selection and Show Preparation, William D. Drury describes the temperament of the bloodhound as “extremely affectionate, neither quarrelsome with companions nor with other dogs. His nature is somewhat shy, and equally sensitive to kindness or correction by his master”. In contrast Drury states the Cuban Bloodhounds were “savage brutes”. “In the Southern States of America it was customary to hunt escaped slaves with hounds and to call those hounds Bloodhounds. It is not wise to make sweeping assertions, and no doubt each district had its special strain of man-hunters, but whatever else these might be, they were not Bloodhounds.”

And finally, Judge John Camillus McWhorter was disturbed by the courts willingness to accept the Bloodhounds’ scenting abilities as a evidence. In 1920, Judge McWhorter diligently researched the subject of Bloodhounds. Judge McWhorter consulted with the leading authority on the British Bloodhounds, Count Le Couteulx De Cautelue and found that the Bloodhound is “docile and affectionate” and so “slow and plodding”, it was rendered useless for hunting animals so it was crossed with the fox terrier to produce fox hounds. The Judge found that the Bloodhound’s savage image was a myth and noted that the kind and affectionate Bloodhound could not be “induced to hurt anyone”. He also realized that any discussion of the true Bloodhound must by necessity include the vicious Cuban Bloodhound because the two dogs were often confused. Judge McWhorter notes that the Cuban bloodhounds were “vicious”. In contrast, the true Bloodhounds were often found at the end of their trail being pet by the person they were pursuing. The Judge’s research found there were no true Bloodhounds in America during slavery and they were not imported until just before 1880. The dogs of choice were fox hounds for scenting (who also could not be induced to inflict harm) and Cuban bloodhounds for capturing their property. The Judge traced the myth of the Bloodhound’s infallible nose to the slave owners who used the fox hounds and called them Bloodhounds and exaggerated their scenting abilities to keep their slaves intimidated. Of course, the reputation of the vicious Cuban Bloodhound helped keep them intimidated too. The Judge believed the Cubans were the result of a cross between the Great Dane which at that time was doing the work that the Dogo and the American Bulldog now excels at - hunting hogs and the Cuban Mastiff - a guarding/fighting dog.

Now that we have become familiar with the historical TRUTHS about "Bloodhounds", let’s see what the pit bull apologia tries to pass off as the truth.

When the average person hears that bloodhounds were the monsters of the 1800’s, they automatically visualize McGruff the Crime Dog. The damage is done. Karen Delise succeeds in further muddying the dangerous dog waters and advancing the pit bull agenda, while slandering an ancient breed dog with absolutely NO documented history of attacks. Merritt Clifton’s dog bite data, lists NO Bloodhounds in serious or fatal attacks from 1982-2009. Likewise for Delise’s own dog bite statistics in her first book Fatal Dog Attacks, NO Bloodhounds were involved in a dog bite related fatality. As a matter of fact, while researching the Bloodhound, the opinions seems unanimous, this dog is probably THE most docile of hounds.

The Bloodhound aficionados on dogbreedinfo.com advise owners to supervise child/dog interactions NOT for the sake of the children but for the sake of the dog! “The Bloodhound is a kind, patient, noble, mild-mannered and lovable dog. Gentle, affectionate and excellent with children. This is truly a good natured companion. These dogs are so good-natured that they will lie there and meekly let children clamber all over them. This breed loves all the attention they receive from them. To be fair to your Bloodhound, make sure your children do not pester or hurt the dog, because Bloodhounds will sit there and take it.” Hmmm, sounds almost like a nanny dog. Compare that to what the pit bull apologists scream in unison after a serious or fatal pit bull attack, “never leave children alone with dogs!” as if all dogs possess the same liability.

Karen Delise addresses the Cuban Bloodhound and the Siberian Bloodhound in Chapter Two of her book The Pit Bull Placebo and deliberately blurs the three different breeds of dogs together to strengthen her argument that the human component is the ultimate determining factor of aggressiveness in dogs.

First on the agenda is the statement that started this journey, “Pit bulls weren’t always considered dangerous dogs—that honor has shifted from breed to breed throughout history. In the 1880s, bloodhounds tormented the populace.” Dissecting Delise’s Appendix A, starting on page 176, for the years 1880-1889, Delise recorded 16 serious and fatal dog attacks by “Bloodhounds”. Breaking it down by specific type, Delise lists 11 Bloodhounds, 3 Siberians and 2 Cubans. Recall that Bloodhounds had just come to America around 1880 and in 1889, two bloodhounds were imported from England for $1000 a piece and the AKC had 14 Bloodhounds in their registry. The probabiltity that the dogs identified as Bloodhounds, were in fact true British Bloodhounds given their population and their value seems stasticially impossible.

Cuban Bloodhound

Excerpts from The Pit Bull Placebo

My commentaries are italicized.

"The case previously discussed of the Bloodhounds killing a burglary suspect they were tracking may be a case of “true Bloodhounds” since these dogs were owned by professionals, worked exclusively as tracking dogs, and were identified by the authorities as Bloodhounds." p 25

Authorities? The same kinds of authorities that Delise now claims cannot identify a pit bull?

"It is known that Bloodhound-type dogs were used by both the Union and Confederate armies to hunt down enemy soldiers, as well as in prison camps. And there is little dispute about the fact that Bloodhounds were used to hunt down fleeing suspects. The real dispute at the time was the level of aggression attributed to these dogs. For every media account of a scent dog attacking and inflicting harm on its human quarry, there were long editorials submitted to the newspapers by Bloodhound aficionados explaining the noble and gentle characteristics to be found in this breed. The obvious point that seemed to escape notice was the fact that dogs did indeed perform in both of these fashions, i.e., savagely attacking their quarry at times and at times showing tremendous restraint and gentleness upon reaching their quarry. As the debate swirled about the true nature and behavior of the Bloodhound, the evidence that owners/handlers determined behavior was seldom discussed." p 10

There is no dispute about the level of aggression in the Cuban and Siberian Bloodhounds. These were savage brutes. The dogs performed in both fashions because they were two different breeds. The only swirling debate is in the minds of desperate pit nutters attempting to create disinformation about the British Bloodhound in the same way that they create disinformation in the pit bull, ie, the nanny dog.

"Many people owned Bloodhounds in the late 1800s," p 20

Many? How about fourteen people.

"So while there can be debate over which breeds of dog contributed to the genetic makeup of the Cuban Bloodhound, it is really of little significance. The behaviors of these animals had little to do with breed genetics and everything to do with the depravity of their masters." p 23

There are two problems with this statement. First, the genetic makeup of these dogs has been determined, they were pit bull type dogs. And second, as demonstrated previously, the "depraved masters" failed to create vicious attack dogs out of the Fox Hounds.

"And so we find, despite the numerous reports of Bloodhound related attacks and fatalities, there is no documented case where a St. Hubert’s/British or “true” Bloodhound was ever positively identified." p 26

And there it is. The one sentence out of 200 pages that speaks the truth and it is lost in the obstreperous roar of the evil genius' adoring fans.

"Here again, we have dogs that, although prized for aggression towards humans, still functioned as tracking or scent dogs, which makes the designation “Bloodhound” technically correct." p 27

I think if the tables were turned, this would be the point in the discussion where all of the pit nutters start to scream "THAT'S NOT A PIT BULL!"

"The following lose-lose situation for a Siberian Bloodhound took place in 1882 in New York City. The son of a policeman was walking a huge Siberian Bloodhound on a “cord” when approached by the owner of a varnishing company. The merchant wished to purchase the dog to guard his factory. The dog was sold for $5 and promptly put to use. Shortly thereafter, an employee showed up one Sunday night to set up the ovens for the next day. The Bloodhound attacked the man and the dog was shot the next morning for his troubles." p 27

This is a perfect example of how the pit bull apologia deliberately distorts reality. I found this New York Times article and the dog is identified as a SIBERIAN Bloodhound, yet in the appendix on page 176, Delise records it as a "Bloodhound". Despicable.

"The behavior of these Bloodhound-type dogs was either the direct result of human encouragement for aggressiveness or the direct result of humans failing to control or use reasonable care with these animals." p 34

The behavior of these Bloodhound-type dogs was the direct result of genetic engineering on the part of depraved masters.

"Cuban Bloodhound, Siberian Bloodhound, British Bloodhound—it matters little, for when these breeds left the hands of those looking for a vicious tracking, attack, or guard dog, severe and fatal attacks by these breeds virtually disappeared from newspaper reports." p 35

The classic deflection of breed matters little or "a dog is a dog is a dog". But the fact remains that even when the gentle British Bloodhound was crossed with a scrappy Fox Terrier to create the Fox Hound, they would not attack the slaves. And I suspect that these breeds "virtually" disappeared from the newspaper reports because people became fed up with this level of savagery and voluntarily gave them up as in the case of Jesse Edward or law makers banned them as they did in Massachusetts in 1886.

In Delise’s zeal to condemn all dogs in order to further her pit bull agenda, she makes a few critical errors.

First, she classifies ALL Bloodhounds as scent hounds, when in fact the CUBAN and SIBERIAN Bloodhounds are guarding/hunting dogs. These dogs didn’t track people, they hunted them. And when they located their human prey, they often savaged them and sometimes even killed them. In contrast, the British Bloodhound is the ultimate tracker and finding the end of the trail is his reward.

Second, Delise describes an 1882 incident in New York where a factory guard dog, a Siberian Bloodhound, attacks an employee (p 27). Delise then records the attack in appendix A on p 176 as simply "Bloodhound", further deliberately blurring the lines between the “bloodhounds” and creating fear around a docile dog.

Third, Delise is highly critical of those who rely on the media reporting of pit bull attacks, yet she herself commits this crime with reckless abandon on attacks that occurred over 100 years ago.

Fourth, Delise tries to reinforce the cruel owner aspect by emphasizing the use of a CORD to control the dog. I found other references during the 1880’s of a leash loosely described as a CORD and ROPE. There were no PetSmarts or Petcos back in the day. People used what they had to make do. They were not necessarily being cruel or abusive.

Fifth, Delise lists the first recorded Bloodhound attack in 1864, approximately FIFTEEN years before the Bloodhound arrived in America!

And sixth, Delise’s biggest mistake was in assuming that no one would check her research. Welcome to google Karen!

The myth of the savage Bloodhound in the 1880's must be stopped before it gains the momentum of the Nanny Dog. Wayne Pacelle, you are in a unique position to ensure that this lie is extinguished.

Beecher Stowe, Harriet Uncle Tom's Cabin or Life among the Lowly, 1852

Uroshevich, Yvette Fila Brasileiro: A Comprehensive Owner's Guide, 2003

Richardson, H.D. Dogs: Their Origin and Varieties, Directions As to Their General Management, 1857

AKC Stud Book, Volume six, 1889

New York Times Attacked By Bloodhounds, November 22, 1885

New York Times A Siberian Bloodhound Killed, March 24, 1882

New York Times A Siberian Bloodhound; After Biting Several Persons He Digests Three Grains of Strychnia, March 10, 1882

Gross, Warren Lee, The Soldier's Story of His Captivity at Andersonville, Belle Isle, and Other Rebel Prisons, 1869

The Winchell Genealogy

Laws and Resolves Passed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, 1884

Acts and resolves passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, 1892

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, New York, June 1889

Dyer, Walter The New Country Life, The Maligned Bloodhound, 1917

Oliver Optic's magazine: Our boys and girls, Volumes 7-8, 1870

Drury, W. D. British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, And Show Preparation, 1903

Harmar, Hilary The Bloodhound Origin And History

White English Bulldog Preservation Society, 2006

Citypages.com Dangerous Dogs of North Minneapolis, August 25, 2010

McWhorter, J.C American Law Review, Volume 54, The Bloodhound as a Witness, 1920

Wrightington, Sydney R. The Green Bag, Volume 17, 1905

Jesse, Edward Anecdotes of Dogs, 1858

Clifton, Merritt Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 - December 2009

Delise, Karen Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics, 2002

Delise, Karen The Pit Bull Placebo The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression, 2007

free download of The Pit Bull Placebo book is available HERE.

special thanks to cking, researcher, editor, collaborator.

1881