The host of NPR's This American Life once tried to raise a pit bull with his now ex-wife.
He let the dog ruin his lifeđź§µ
He ended up getting it on Prozac and Valium, feeding it kangaroo and ostrich, and making excuses for the many times it would attack people.
Ira Glass' wife had a dog before they got married, but it died right before the ceremony.
That dog was a pit bull and it was a rescue, so they decided it would be good to rescue another one.
Per him, it originally came with the "slave name" Marley, which he changed to Piney.
Shortly after taking him home, Piney seemingly developed severe allergies to whatever he was eating.
So, Ira and his wife got him set up with a doctor. In fact, they got him set up with four doctors.
And they started spending more time cooking for the dog than for themselves.
As an indication that this was decidedly not a real condition, but in fact something that Ira and his wife were Munchausen-by-proxying onto the dog, it apparently just kept developing allergies to every new meat it would eat.
And he apparently needed expensive meals.
After committing himself to taking daily, hour-plus-long trips get fresh kangaroo to feed to Piney, Ira started to fantasize about what life could be like if he didn't have this high-needs pit in his life.
It becomes very clear to the interviewer that Ira sees his pit bull as helpless and dependent and precious, rather than as a vicious dog that's forcing him to throw his time down the drain.
And, in fact, Ira sounds like he's an abused girlfriend.
Why "abused"? Because the dog is violent.
And because he was justifying it.
Notice how he's aware that the dog is breaking people's skin and really going in for serious bites, and he just decides to call those "nips".
And let's be clear here.
This dog does not love Ira Glass. It might have loved his wife, but it didn't love him.
It fundamentally thought he was an aggressive male who shouldn't be allowed to go near... his own wife, Anaheed.
This dog was actually ruining his life.
He could no longer have a real, adult social life, because he couldn't stay away from the dog for very long, and, perhaps more importantly, people couldn't come over to his home or they'd be attacked.
This was *despite* paying trainers!
Ira's love for this pit bull was pathological.
He knew it was a terrible dog. He didn't realize that it didn't really love him. He thought it was misunderstood, and being misjudged by others, even though he thought the only way to appease it would be self-sacrifice!
Ira and Anaheed eventually divorced, and in a later interview where he was asked about it, he confirmed that Piney contributed to his marriage failing.
This is all tragic, but it's also so avoidable.
From the outset, the whole endeavor was delusional.
Ira and his wife adopted this animal, in part because they wanted to defy the perception that pit bulls were bad
They wanted to show that you could take a dog perceived a certain way, raise it well, and have everything turn out fine
Why they believed this, I can only speculate
Ira and Anaheed were addicted to the 'feel-good' notion that they were protecting an underdog, saving a reviled thing, protecting this sweet, kind, and loving animal from a world that wished it harm.
But they were suckers for a dog that abused them and eventually broke them.
It is genuinely shocking to read through these interviews and this story and to see that a man who is genuinely insightful about so many topics could show such a pathological level of self-sacrificial adoration for a monstrous animal
An animal any rational person should put down
But there it is.
And there go so many others, too.
A lot of people who end up being mauled, having kids mauled, having neighbors mauled... they're just like Ira.
If they accepted the reality that some dogs have earned their bad reputations, maybe this wouldn't have happened.
Don't be delusional about pit bulls. Don't sacrifice your life for something that can't even begin to love you. Don't become pathologically sorry for yourself and indignant towards others for disliking your evil dog.
The idea is to put large, powerful animals like bulls or lions in the ring with several dogs, and the winner lives.
The sport has existed for thousands of years. One of our first records is of Indians showing it to Alexander the Great.
The first record in England comes from 1610 and features King James I requesting the Master of the Beargarden—a bear training facility—to provide him with three dogs to fight a lion.
Two of the dogs died and the last escaped because the lion did not wish to fight and retreated.
For one, there's no supportive pattern of sanctions. For two, you can develop in near-autarky, and before post-WW2, that was comparatively what the most developed countries were dealing with.
I'm not talking fatalities, but bites, because bites are still a bad outcome and any dog who bites should be put down.
If we take the annual risk a dog bites its owner, scale it for pit bulls and Golden Retrievers, and extrapolate 30 years...
How do you calculate this?
Simple.
First, we need estimates of the portion of the U.S. population bitten by dogs per year. Next, to adjust that, we need the portion of those bites that are to owners. So, for overall dogs, we get about 1.5% and roughly ~25% of that.
Then, to obtain lifetime risk figures, we need to pick a length for a 'lifetime'. I picked thirty years because that's what I picked. Sue me. It's about three dog lifetimes.
P(>=1 bite) = 1-(1-p)^t
It's pure probability math. To rescale for the breed, we need estimates of the relative risk of different dog being the perpetrators of bites. We'll use the NYC DOHMH's 2015-22 figures to get the risk for a Golden Retriever (breed = "Retriever" in the dataset) relative to all other dogs, and Lee et al. 2021's figures to get the risk for a pit bull. The results don't change much just using the NYC figures, they just became significantly higher risk for the pit bulls.
To rescale 'p' for b reed, it's just p_{breed} = p_{baseline} \times RR_{breed}.
Then you plug it back into the probability of a bite within thirty years. If you think, say, pit bulls are undercounted for the denominator for their RR, OK! Then let's take that to the limit and say that every 'Black' neighborhood in New York has one, halve the risk noticed for them, and bam, you still get 1-in-5 to 1-in-2.5 owners getting bit in the time they own pit bulls (30 years).
And mind you, bites are not nips. As Ira Glass had to be informed when he was talking about his notorious pit bull, it did not just "nip" two children, it drew blood, and that makes it a bite.
Final method note: the lower-bound for Golden Retriever risk was calculated out as 0.00131%, but that rounded down to 0. Over a typical pet dog lifespan of 10-13 years, an individual Golden Retriever will almost-certainly not bite its owner even once, whereas a given pit that lives 11.5 years will have an 18-33% chance of biting, and if we use the DOHMH RRs, it's much higher. If we use the DOHMH RR and double their population, that still holds.
The very high risk of a bite associated with a pit bull is highly robust and defies the notion that '99.XXXX% won't ever hurt anyone.' The idea that almost no pit bulls are bad is based on total fatality risk and it is a farcical argument on par with claiming that Great White Sharks shouldn't be avoided because they kill so few people.
Frankly, if we throw in non-owner risk, the typical pit bull *will* hurt some human or some animal over a typical pet dog's lifespan. And because pit bulls live a little bit shorter, you can adjust that down, but the result will still directionally hold because they are just that god-awful of a breed.
Final note:
Any dog that attacks a human or another dog that wasn't actively attacking them first should be put down. That is a big part of why this matters. These attacks indicate that the dogs in question must die.