This week on Blocked and Reported, we reexamine American Bully X.
To support the show and get exta content and much more, become a Primo. To buy our very popular merch, shop here.
Brianna Wu:
https://twitter.com/headassnic/status/1706955256427626982
https://twitter.com/BriannaWu/status/1371452139856392196
https://twitter.com/longislandviper/status/1371495816649703425
SF Gate: “American bully dogs bred as lovers, not fighters”
“Defaming Rover: Error-Based Latent Rhetoric in the Medical Literature on Dog Bites”
“Visual Breed Identification: A Literature Review”
Note: An earlier version of this episode contained a math error. I said “nine out of 15” when I should have said "11 out of 15.” Still somehow Jesse’s fault. It has been updated.—KH
Hi Katie, in case you're reading I just wanted to say that the American Bully XL episode was one of my faves in recent memory! Unlike most listeners apparently, I didn't come in with a strong opinion on the matter and thought it was really thoroughly reported and quite fascinating to explore the different characters and sides of the issue.
I didn't come away thinking "American bullies are gentle as lambs and great family dogs that have been unfairly besmirched". Instead it was more like 1) breed bans are often ineffective and hard to implement, especially for pit mixes given their prevalence in the dog population; 2) there are cultural associations that may exacerbate pitt hate in a way that does not impact breeds like German shepherds; 3) some activist organizations are well-intentioned but spread dubious statistics that are credulously reported by media, leading to aforementioned ineffective bans.
I thought it was a nuanced, well-considered investigation. Sorry you're getting so much hate.
It was mind-boggling to me that so many people on here who were commenting with outrage sounded like they latched on to some minor inaccuracies in the story and completely missed the bigger picture/actual point of the episode. I saw some nuanced discussion more on here though, unlike Reddit and TwitterX, at least.
Tbh, some of the ‘inaccuracies’ were so minor as to be little more than nitpicking that don’t really alter the substance of the piece at all.
I missed the original discussion (thankfully) but it strikes me as a lot of people with a very fixed views outraged that someone could say ‘actually it’s probably a lot more complicated than it may first seem’.
To me it rather seemed Katie is the one to miss the bigger picture here precisely because she focused on relatively minor issues, and many people pointed that out.
The bigger picture is that if these dogs are not distinguishable from other pitbulls and there's zero evidence they are actually more docile, they should fall under the existing ban. In that view, all the nuance and nitty gritty is unnecessary.
"The bigger picture is that if these dogs are not distinguishable from other pitbulls and there's zero evidence they are actually more docile, they should fall under the existing ban. In that view, all the nuance and nitty gritty is unnecessary."
The nuance might inform how we should feel about the existing ban in the first place though.
I wrote this elsewhere but in the UK, “pit bull type” dogs are banned and not just American pitbull terriers — they must meet physical standards that were outlined by the American Dog Breeders Association. American Bully XLs had to be added onto the list later…so they probably did not fit the definition of “pit bull type” as stated by the government in the first place. There likely aren't a lot of "real" ABXLs (ones who originated from the breeders in the US who developed the "breed") in the UK anyway since they are ridiculously expensive. Maybe some of them have ABXL in their breeding but who knows without DNA testing.
But whatever, the actual big picture issue that maybe should have seen more focus on is that BSLs are not an effective way to curb violent dog attacks. Describing this ridiculous drama with ABXLs made for an interesting episode, but I wish there had been more attention paid to that. Nevertheless I still thought it was a decent episode since it got me to do a bit more research about this whole thing.
I imagine Katie would have got even more shit from the anti Pit Bull crowd had she focused more on BSLs ineffectiveness.
From my time in the UK, I know that the media have for a long time focused on the dangers of specific breeds. It’s not that the public aren’t aware that issues with owners or other non breed specific factors aren’t causative to dog attacks, but it’s very easy for the UKs tabloid culture to whip up breed specific hysteria that quickly becomes disconnected to the factual situation. The issues with ABXLs comes at the end of long and ingrained tabloid trope about ‘killer breeds’.
Given the complexity of the issues trying to cover both the effectiveness AND the identification critiques of BSLs in any depth would have required and enormous amount of work and it sounds like Katie but in a lot of time and effort just on this specific aspect.
Like Katie I’m agnostic on BSLs per se, but imagine if they are warranted in some cases they need to narrower and more clearly defined than currently.
Easier to deal with than penalising bad owners harder. I hadn’t even considered leash laws. I’d be MASSIVELY in favour of that- had an escalating conflict with a neighbour over his loose dog chasing our cats ON OUR PROPERTY that ended with him in prison- would have been nice if he had just had the dog taken after the first complaint.
Agreed! So we’ll said. I love dogs but don’t know this world at all. It’s wild that when you provide nuance to statements and try to come away with a reasonable stance people still filter it through their preconceived beliefs.
Totally agree. This piece was sooooo good. Really enjoyed both podcasts on this topic. Fascinating.
The fall of the Roman Empire was due to heated pitbull discourse
This was due to confusion of the Molossus hound (and mixes) with the pit bull. There are some similarities in appearance but while the Molossus were dogs of war, Roman pit bulls were nanny dogs (and sometimes wet nurses when wolves were unavailable).
Those Roman dog inspectors needed to get their shit together
that's why the empire fell!
Oh, thanks for making me think about the Roman Empire again, that’s 3 times today and it’s only 10am
The Roman empire meme was the least surprising thing to both me and my girlfriend. She and I were both like well duh, at least in my case. Good to know other guys have their priorities in order as well.
I think there should be a meta-meme about whether the meme makes sense to people.
Abetted no doubt by circumcision discourse
Today's Mastino Napoletano is a direct descendant of the Mollossian dogs. They are docile, my Italian father-in-law had several and we had one - Mischa. Their jaws are so powerful that a bite can cause severe damage, but they are not aggressive dogs by nature. Unfortunately, almost any dog can be trained to be aggressive by owners who are interested in a guard dog. I do believe people who buy certain breeds should have to have background checks - like gun owners - and take dog training classes.
Katie is an incredibly thorough reporter. That she felt a second episode was necessary just shows you how committed she is to making sure the audience has all the information. Crazy to me to that anyone here would think she's biased or not giving the full story in any way. If you've listened to any of her other episodes you'd know exactly how much work and worry she puts into getting the story right.
If you listened to the first episode you'd know that her credulous approach was well below the standards the pod usually sets.
I did listen to the first episode. Very well reported!
You’re of course entitled to view her as credulous but I think it’s a really unfair description of the first episode.
She didn’t affirm his specific position though, and believed counterarguments which if true WOULD undermine his position; therefore she was credulous.
I personally do not like pit bulls. I have friends who work in paediatrics and their stories have more than convinced me that we are better off without them and I’ll be happy with the ban when it comes in. But I don’t think Katie did a terrible job and she did make me think about it- though I haven’t changed my mind lol
I don't see the connection between putting a lot of work into something and the actual validity of the story. Tunnel vision does exist!
Listening to the list of calls she made for the episode was pretty eye opening. She’s very thorough!
It’s one thing to have a disagreement with someone, it’s another to directly send the unsolicited dog attack videos
The internet enables so much shitty behaviour.
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with people. Tbh I’m sure she watched some while researching the story anyway- how could you not, they’re in most of the articles. But still I don’t know what pushes people to immediately go so far into extreme behaviour after the first disagreement with someone. All Hamas, no Gaza.
them*
We love you Katie! Don’t feel stressed out by the response - your conclusions were wrong in the last ep but it’s ok, no one is perfect :)
Very commendable that she sat down with Lawrence and Sam, too. I think the issues stemmed from her over-correcting for her bias against pitbulls, not from a general bias towards dogs.
Agreed
Yes!
Thanks for writing exactly what I was thinking
This is an incredibly frustrating episode to listen to. I didn't comment on the first one because mistakes happen and no one is perfect, but when you re-cover it and still make the same mistake it's incredibly annoying, frustrating, and, as a listener, disheartening. I'm not threatening to quit listening or unsubscribing, but I certainly would be thinking about it if this was a subject that was regularly covered.
The mistake here is there is no such thing as an "American Bully XL", and to say it's exists and is bred to be something is still an aspirational statement. To develop a breed of dog, or of anything, you have to actually get the different sources to breed (and many different versions of them), raise the offspring, sterilize the ones with characteristics/behaviors you don't want, have the remaining ones breed with other sources with the characteristics/behaviors you want to reinforce, then rinse and repeat for a few generations. Then when you do all that you then have to raise a couple more generations to prove what you've got is a stable mix with the characteristics you want that don't have hidden genetic defects or other problem areas.
That takes decades at a minimum. And that's before you even release the "breed" out in the world. The American Bully XL is, quite literally, just a random shot in the dark by a fanatic who has more dreams than sense. And I don't say that in a derogatory sense, I mean that in order to think you can create a dog breed by just doing a generation or two of mixing with a pair of breeds and hope it works is literally the textbook definition of feels over reals.
The fact that someone as educated and smart as Katie decided to run this story without considering that is what's disheartening here. In this episode she even brings up the reason they discuss the issue using the trans issue as an analogy, when one of the things they've covered on trans issues is the fact that there is no good data on certain aspects because it literally takes time for people on newer treatments to progress and get data on them. If she wanted to cover this story from a similar angle to their trans coverage, that's the angle they should have gone with. Crazy breeder does a hack job on creating a new dog type and the idiots who defend the new breed based on a hail mary pass and a prayer.
Edit:
I realized the last sentence there is a bit passive aggressive. Another way to say this in a more polite way is that there has, objectively, not been enough time to determine if the intent of the breeder has played out in the breed. And the breed itself wasn't given enough time and simply raw numbers to build itself as a proven breed before being sold to the public. The result is even if the "American Bully XL" does exist in some form as intended by the breeder, a ton of other breeders, whom aren't necessarily "bad breeders", have replicated the breed themselves in the same manner and passed them out to the public. If you insist on considering American Bully XL a breed, you don't actually have just an American Bully XL, you have the American Bully XL-Dave version, American Bully XL-Trisha version, American Bully XL-Lebron version. And then you get American Bully XL-Dave & Trish Version. And so on and so forth.
Part of her argument is that there is no such thing as an American Bully XL - for the reasons you mentioned - and that's why it's questionable to ban a breed that doesn't exist in any meaningful, easily categorised way. It's hard to identify a Bully XL, which muddies the water around the statistics because people report dogs as being Bully XLs when they probably aren't. I don't see how you are saying anything Katie didn't already address in the pod.
Pitbulls in Britain are already banned. The Bully XL is a "new" category that allows people to circumvent the law. The argument is that they aren't meaningfully different than existing pitbulls
But it "circumvents the ban" by not having pit bull characteristics, which means your argument against them can't just recurse to "they're effectively pit bulls." The characteristics are different, so you have to generate evidence that those characteristics themselves pose a danger to the public and that evidence hasn't been provided.
But they're going around killing people. They are directly implicated in the rise and deaths by dogs in Britain. Then the argument is that you can't "prove" that they are American Bully XLs because nobody can tell them apart from regular pitbulls, and we're back where we're started.
Well, they're not. They're "implicated" but only as a function of the fact that when there's a media-driven hysteria around certain dog breeds, people who aren't good at readily-identifying dog breeds by sight who get attacked by dogs falsely identify the dog as whatever's been in the news. "Oh, the media says pit bulls attack people. I was attacked; must be a pitbull."
There's no actual good evidence linking any dog breed to any dog attack because the dog breed is rarely identified when a dog attacks a person. The dog itself is rarely identified, so you can't just go to the dog and see what breed it is.
They have identified them, because they are killing people https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1706363365323313591?s=19
BullyWatch's data isn't based on real identification. It's based on assuming dogs of unidentifiable breed that attacked people are "probably bullies" since they "attack people."
Read the linked thread, dude. It's not Bullywatch. There's not some big conspiracy against pitbulls led by some shadowy cabal. Look up Stuart Ritchie's Twitter and read his response to Katie's utter botching of this issue. After looking at all the evidence, you might still believe that it's not enough to ban a breed. But actually engage with some of the contrary evidence instead of just asserting that it doesn't exist
I did literally engage with Bullywatch, and their response was that they knew their data was low-quality but thought getting more of it would ameliorate that problem. But that's not how anything works.
If there’s no such thing as an American Bully, there are a few implications that don’t line up with how Katie talked about the story:
(1) If there’s no such thing as an American Bully, all so-called American Bullies should be treated the same as all other pit bulls from a legal perspective. Since pit bulls are currently banned in the UK but “American Bullies” aren’t, the UK needs to either also ban “American Bullies” or unban pit bulls (I personally don’t know what I think about which it should be, FWIW). Katie seemed to be treating the status quo, in which pit bulls are banned but “American Bullies” aren’t, as reasonable.
(2) If “American Bullies” are just pit bulls, then it’s not really that important whether the dog involved in a particular attack is an “American Bully” or a pit bull—much as it wouldn’t matter if a particular dog was a yellow lab or a black lab. Katie discussed the story as though a lot hinges on whether a particular dog was correctly identified as an “American Bully” or whether it was just a pit bull.
(3) If there’s no such thing as an “American Bully,” the activists you should be most suspicious of are the ones who say there is one, it’s something different from a pit bull, and it should be treated differently by the law—not the ones who say the law should treat so-called “American Bullies” the same as pit bulls.
1) If there's so obviously no such thing as American Bullies, why is the UK government & media putting so much effort into talking about them as a specific breed rather than treating them like pit bulls? If American Bullies aren't a breed, then the status quo is reasonable. The government is the one saying they are a breed, and that legally means the breed must exist, which gives legitimacy to people who argue to Bullies are different and more docile.
2) Again, it matters because that's what the government & media are saying is important, and they're giving out a lot of biased statistics based on potentially incorrect information. If someone identifies ANY dog attack as ANY incorrect breed, that can have bad consequences for the public image of that breed, which leads more people to hate a breed when more robust, unbiased data isn't there to support that hate.
3) The government and media seem pretty certain that there's a difference between pit bulls and American Bullies. Maybe we should question that narrative?
I started writing a long response, but I don't want to get into a protracted back and forth. I just want to focus on one key point of disagreement:
You say, "If American Bullies aren't a breed, then the status quo is reasonable."
No, this is patently not true. If American Bullies aren't a distinct breed, then they are just pit bulls. The status quo in the UK is: Pit bull banned, American Bully legal. It is blatantly unreasonable to say "X is banned, but X is legal if you call it Y." Either ban all the X's, including the ones called Y's, or legalize all the X's.
In the UK, “pit bull type” dogs are banned — they must meet physical standards that were outlined by the American Dog Breeders Association. American Bully XLs probably did not fit into the standards, and thus were added onto the list…so they probably did not fit the definition of “pit bull type” as stated by the government in the first place.
There’s also the fact that it seems like it’s questionable that people can even tell what XLs even look like, given how they’re not really a real breed with clear traits that breed true. To me it seems like a waste of time and resources when they should probably just …ban dangerous dogs and take away any dog that is considered a danger.
"Part of her argument is that there is no such thing as an American Bully XL -"
.... yet she also argues that American Bully XL are bred to be docile.
Either the breed exists or it doesn't. Which one is it??
That question is the point of the podcast, though. If you want an answer to it you're looking in the wrong place, and saying Katie failed in her task by not giving an answer is an unfair expectation. All Katie is doing is laying down the different opinions with emphasis on the ones she sees as not being given enough attention in the mainstream media and explaining why it's a more complicated issue than the incredibly biased activists would have you believe.
Please give me a time code where Katie even suggests either there is "no such thing as an American Bully XL" or that the breed "doesn't exist in any meaningful way". Furthermore I'd also appreciate a time code where Katie indicates there is any evidence to support the statement by the breeder.
I have a lot of interest in the Tamaskan, another breed in development. The goal was to create a "wolf look-alike" dog with no actual wolf ancestry. Predictably, even some of the founding breeders engaged in unscrupulous and unethical breeding practices to produce dogs with the desired look. Wolves were bred in and pedigrees doctored. Dogs with significant health and behavioral issues were bred because they had certain aesthetic traits that bred true. Like bullies, these dogs were selling for $3,000+ easy and that created an incentive to move fast and produce a lot of litters with whatever breeding stock was available.
Recognizing that flooding the dog market with a bunch of recklessly-bred wolfdogs (that were supposedly not even wolfdogs) would trash the reputation of the breed they were trying to develop, the leading breed club decided to implement very strict breeding requirements:
ALL breeding Tamaskans must have a genetic profile submitted that can be used to prove parentage of their puppies. ALL must have genetic health testing. ALL must have hip, elbow and eye testing performed by a vet. Paperwork must be submitted for these tests. Breeders must also submit paperwork for serious health conditions that arise in their dogs' progeny and file a report when a puppy dies during or shortly after birth. ALL breeding pairs must fall below a very low (10%) coefficient of inbreeding, which is a statistical method for guaranteeing genetic diversity. Breeding bitches may have no more than 4 litters in a lifetime. Wolf content must fall below 30% and must be confirmed by DNA testing.
If these requirements are not met, a Tamaskan's puppies will not be registered by the breed club.
These are the kinds of standards you need to have if you want to experiment with creating a new breed responsibly.
Contrast with the American Bully Kennel Club, which requires no health testing and no health reporting, permits unlimited inbreeding, permits any amount of pitbull ancestry, and only requires sires to be genetically profiled after 3 litters.
How can a dog have no wolf ancestry?
Domestic dogs speciated >10,000 years ago, possibly even closer to 100,000 years ago. They share most of their DNA with wolves (as we do with chimps and bonobos) but their genetic profiles are distinct.
Ahhh gotcha - no recent wolf ancestors
First, thank you for your well informed response.
I had a similar feeling as you, even though I know nothing about dogs: Katie is not addressing the issue that her abilities as a journalist are very much in question after these episodes. She's relying on the angry internet mob trope and then going into victimhood--we do not care if you lose sleep, Katie, stop relying on parasociality and start being a better reporter.
"we do not care if you lose sleep, Katie, stop relying on parasociality and start being a better reporter."
Why do you even listen to this podcast if you're going to act exactly like the sort of pretentious, self-righteous online asshole that this show justly criticizes and mocks?
...have you looked at the reddit or the slatestarcodex thing many barpod listeners like? This community is full of pretentious self-righteous online assholes. In fact that's how I'd describe Katie in this ep, too.
Really, you’d describe someone who was clearly deeply committed to getting a story right she spent a huge amount of time addressing critics in good faith, as a ‘pretentious self righteous online arsehole’?
That you seem to think being deeply unpleasant isok is one thing, but that you’ve convinced yourself you’re so right on the issue it justifies being deeply unpleasant quite another...
Katie is not pretentious, you on the other hand.....
(I do care if she loses sleep. Same as anyone who isn’t a monster.)
You don't. There is no way you can care about the sleep health of 8 billion human beings, the brain doesn't work like that.
If you’re going to start throwing around accusations of journalistic malpractice at least have SOME awareness of your own biases and prejudices. Admitting you ‘know nothing about dogs’ would have you hoped caused you to be less certain about your position.
idk what you're talking about because I have no position on the pitbull issue; perhaps you've misunderstood or are confusing me with someone else.
On Katie's shitty journalism? As an ex-journalist who worked in the field for over a decade and now owns a media company, yeah that's something I am qualified to have a position on.
I was referring to your position on Katie’s coverage and your description of her ‘shitty journalism’ is at best an opinion I’m guess you’re entitled to.
As others have noticed you’re just coming across as throughly unpleasant and have no idea why you’ve subscribed if you really do truly believe Katie to be so unprofessional.
Your qualifications for passing judgement on her journalism are of course something we have no way to verify.
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint with me, I find it incredibly valuable and am grateful you've taken the time out to engage with me.
I’m going to mute you now, as a mixture of someone who thinks being so unpleasant online is justified because of their own ‘rightness’ combined with a ridiculously self righteous tone is something I can live without.
I think there’s little chance of me missing anything worthwhile.
Sorry, I'm really struggling to find the disagreement between what you're saying and what Katie reported, both in the original episode and the followup. I feel like we listened to two entirely separate podcasts.
I got too bored to read it all the way though. People get passionate about things, and then they get obsessed with minutia. And when someone doesn't know every single detail that they do, it's time to burn the oilfields and salt the earth.
It doesn’t matter if there isn’t an actual breed called a Bully XL or whatever, because an entire country is considering it a “breed” for the sake of banning dogs that vaguely look like them. They apparently didn’t do the required research on the matter and are basing the ban on social media hype and the misinformed public freaking out about muscular dogs that have a blocky head.
This is gibberish. Go touch grass. You’re as nuts about these dogs as online weirdos are about gender.
And you’ve clearly picked up talking points from comment sections that you’re regurgitating here- it’s incoherent in a very telltale way.
“Crazy breeder does a hack job on creating a new dog type and the idiots who defend the new breed based on a hail mary pass and a prayer”
Except she spoke to others with knowledge in the area who wouldn’t accept the ‘crazy breeder’ description and who based on their background can’t simply be dismissed as ‘idiots’.
It seems ironic that Katie seems far more aware of her biases than many of those criticising her.
Everyone she spoke too referenced that the breeder said they bred the dog to be less aggressive to people. More sources repeating the claims of a single source does not equal "spoke to others with knowledge". If she legitimately found some other evidence, I did not hear it and would be perfectly happy to eat my words and be proven wrong if you'd give me a time code to that. And if a breeder can't provide any proof of their claims, then they are a crazy breeder and not a respectable one.
The fact that they referenced the Breeders claim doesn’t mean they simply relied on it, or didn’t have reason to agree with it based on any evidence they reviewed or on their own expertise.
That you’ve concluded that they simply credulously parroted the Breeders claim & then Katie did the same is simply your conclusion.
That Katie was satisfied she was speaking to trust worthy independent sources that gave credence to Breeders claim seems far more credible than the assumptions you’ve draw which seem simply constructed to confirm the view your originally started with.
Yes, it's common for people to accept a claim after evaluating the data and coming to their own conclusion, but when they do that they reference the data. Where is that reference?
And if Katie wanted us, the listeners, to come to a different conclusion than I did maybe she should provide some basis for any other conclusion. I wouldn't expect her to do that deep a dive on this but maybe interviewing someone who has more to say on the subject than their personal experience and the claim of the breeder. Again, if she did that then I didn't hear it and all you have to do is provide me the point in time when she's done that.
So, having spoken to others with expertise in the field who you’ve no reasonable grounds to question their independence you’re dismissing their view point and are assuming it must simply be credulously accepted the breeders word because Katie’s piece provided details of their view but didn’t go into the basis of how they formed it.
So, rather than assume that level of detail wasn’t included for reasons of space & time you’ve jumped to a prejudicial conclusion that their view can just be dismissed in favour of of one that supports your conclusions.
This really is a waste of time. I came to this with literally no strong views either way, but it’s been pretty obvious a lot of others have completely fixed views & there’s literally nothing Katie could have said or done they’d be happy to accept.
Done!
Despite all your pontificating you've still yet to provide a single point I could go back and listen to during the episode where Katie "provided details of their view". Just saying it's been bred that way is not "details". I would happily accept that.
If everything is as you say this should be super easy and simple, yet you nor anyone else has done it yet.
The only weird thing here is in a podcast that prides itself on properly referencing data and calling out mistakes by people who aren't properly assessing the evidence based reality of the discussion topics you are defending the lack of any of that in these two episodes and instead making excuses for them not following through with their usual rigor. Maybe you should do some introspection about whether I've truly been prejudicial or if you're refusing to see the problem out of some unhealthy parasocial connection with the hosts.
Don’t worry Katie, as a subscriber who truly does not care about this issue whatsoever, I’m not offended.
I didn’t even listen to the original episode but couldn’t resist listening to this one because I 100% knew the drama explosion around this topic would be fascinating.
I haven't listened yet but I hope she doesn't pull the "I'm sorry you were offended shtick" instead of acknowledging the fact that we weren't offended at her bias and shoddy reasoning (and Jesse's lack of challenging her), we were disappointed.
Who’s the ‘we’, I couldn’t disagree more about your description of the first episode.
Mistaking people vocally pointing out pretty staggering credulousness on Katie's part and persistent use of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy isn't being "offended"
You know how idealogues try to hind behind "my enemies are offended" when faced with good criticism? Thank God Katie would never do that.
Ha, same!
I think the whole approach to this issue is wrongheaded, but I was never going to unsub or harass Katie or send anyone videos of people getting mauled, gold star for me!
Anyway, it would have been a very interesting groundbreaking piece of work had there been evidence that pitbulls and related breeds were being scapegoated for attacks by rottweilers or something. "A lot of dogs that basically look like pitbulls are attacking people, but are they the specific crossbreeds people think they are? Conclusion: we aren't sure," is just not getting me wherever I'm supposed to go. And stories about pregnant dogs getting dumped to whelp in the woods only lends credence to the idea that allowing loopholes to the pit ban put pit crosses in the wrong hands.
The issue, fundamentally, is that not knowing something isn't a justification to jump to whatever conclusion you prefer. If you don't know the breed of the dog, you can neither say "this was a pit bull, tally up another pit attack" like BullyWatch does, neither can you say "this isn't a pit bull, it's actually a rottweiler." Because you don't know.
The vast, vast majority of human dog attacks are by unidentified dogs. But there aren't that many dog attacks on humans to begin with. The data literally does not statistically support any course of action at all - the only reasonable position is to "have no dog in the fight", if you will.
Dogs that look like pit bulls and related breeds commit a drastically disproportionate number of attacks. Thus, dogs that look like pit bulls are banned. It's not a particularly sophisticated hammer for the problem, but that doesn't make it a bad one.
I don't think it would be a bad idea at all to do DNA testing on dangerous dogs euthanized by the state, but as the state is already reasonably convinced in its conclusions it has no reason to pay for that. Perhaps Bully Watch will work out a way to get that funded/done. I very much doubt that pit advocacy groups would want to fund that.
But they don't, is the thing. They don't commit a drastically disproportionate number of attacks - there are so few dog attacks that almost no number of attacks, by however you group the dogs, is disproportionate. Hardly any dogs attack people, so whenever a dog does, that dog's breed is now responsible for a "disproportionate number of attacks."
Poor Katie has been bullied on the internet, which is something Barpod always takes seriously.
If you think this stuff is contentious now, just wait until JK Rowling makes a few innocuous comments.
You could post this comment every episode!
The one piece that I really felt NEEDED to be addressed is that the UKC apparently allows registered American Pit Bull Terriers to be "transferred" to the American Bully breed. Once the paperwork is processed, a purebred pitbull is magically transformed into an American Bully, and its puppies will be registerable as American Bullies.
As far as I can tell, this is a perfect smoking gun for those arguing that this breed was created primarily to circumvent breed bans, including allowing people to import and breed purebred pitbulls that have not been modified in any way.
https://www.ukcdogs.com/docs/registration-forms/breed-transfer-american-bully.pdf
Katie’s approach to the pitbull problem feels like willful blindness. The idea that “being docile” is a trait that you could select for w/ breeding with a few generations is so unscientific. This is Lysenkoism with a new name
I guess it depends on what you mean by a few generations, but in experiments a third of silver foxes were judged to be domesticated after 20 generations of selection for tameness, while nearly all of them were assessed to be domesticated after 30 generations. It wouldn't surprise me that it would take even fewer generations to bring an already domesticated, if aggressive, animal like the Pitbull and decrease its aggression to normal levels for a dog.
I would disagree.
Foxes are wild and breeding them strictly for tameness is relatively simple. Fighting dogs were bred for docility to humans and aggressiveness towards other dogs. That's highly specialized and complex. Picking the calmest foxes is one thing. To 'unbreed' a pit's aggression means reversing one trait while still maintaining the others.
And that's in a breed that's genetically bottlenecked, not a wild population.
And unless I missed something, they didn’t even attempt to breed dog aggression out of them.
Unless I'm missing something, there are a lot of "aggressive" dogs that have an instinct to chase and kill prey - is there any actual proof that pit bulls are more aggressive to humans, or is this vibes?
I'm leaning towards vibes, despite all of the self-proclaimed dog breeding experts around here.
I don't know about humans, but if I had a small dog I would be very, very concerned if a former racing dog, e.g., a greyhound, were off leash as the instinct to chase and catch is still there.
Bulldogs are descended from mastiffs, bred for bull baiting. That was banned around the start of the 19th century. So people started crossing bulldogs with terriers explicitly for dog fighting. That's a lot of aggressive genetics to draw from.
I mean, that's also more than a century where dogfighting has been illegal in the Western world (from cursory googling it looks like things peaked and then cratered in the mid/late 19th century for dog fighting), during which time kennel clubs had no incentive to breed for aggression.
They're obviously bred to look mean, but I'm not sure if they're bred to be mean.
Dogfighting did not end when it was outlawed. Michael Vick was a high profile perpetrator, but his was hardly an isolated case. The ASPCA says they think tens of thousands of Americans participate in dogfighting (https://www.aspca.org/investigations-rescue/dogfighting/closer-look-dogfighting). You can also just search “dogfighting arrest” and see how many cases make the news every year.
The people who are doing this are predominantly using pit bulls and they are absolutely breeding them for aggression. Those pit bulls go somewhere, particularly when these guys get arrested. Most of the pit bulls people actually own probably aren’t from “kennel clubs.” They’re from hobbyist breeders (some portion of whom likely have connections to dogfighting), or animal shelters or rescues. Some portion of “rescue pit bulls,” and probably not as small a portion as we’d hope, are absolutely fighting dogs or recent descendants of fighting dogs.
This is crux of it. A lot of this discourse is founded on the assumption that there is a meaningful difference between the "bad" breeds and the "good" breeds. I see absolutely no evidence, from a genetic standpoint, why we should start from that assumption.
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to a famously faked study.
The Belyayev domestication experiments? No, they were not faked. There is some controversy surrounding "Domestication Syndrome", the idea that domesticated animals necessarily develop certain physical characteristics such as neoteny or piebald coloring, which was claimed to have been observed following the domestication experiments. And there are some lingering questions surrounding the exact timelines, because the undomesticated foxes were bought from a fox farm and likely were selected for certain traits of their own. But no one that I'm aware of believes the experiments were faked. There are still silver foxes being bred from the original program that can be seen today
The Times did an article on the Domestication Syndrome controversy which can be found below,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/science/foxes-tame-belyaev.html
Looks like there was some disagreement about the implications, according to Wikipedia, but faked? How does one fake tame foxes? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox#:~:text=After%20over%2040%20generations%20of,but%20with%20much%20lower%20frequency%E2%80%A6.
Weren't the foxes incredibly docile to begin with? Thought I heard you do could elicit essentially the same behavior of the `domesticated' foxes from a wild Canadian cousin? Also looked the same.
They also bred extremely angry, opposite-of-domesticated foxes, so no. They were doing honest-to-goodness artificial selection.
How likely is it that a wild animal acts like a tame animal? I haven't seen your sources, but my prior on this is 0.5%. Maybe 1 in 100 is somewhat more tame, but that's the point of artificial selection.
Think I first heard about this on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe? Here are a couple of sources:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.5395387/century-old-photos-from-p-e-i-debunk-famous-study-on-how-foxes-were-tamed-says-scientist-1.5392806
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/science/foxes-tame-belyaev.html
I haven't looked into it too deeply, so in the best SGU practice I must admit that I'm possibly mis-remembering and/or mis-informed!
Ah, so the foxes were from fox farms, and the farmers had been selecting them for generations! Now that is plausible. So 10 generations is probably too fast. I wonder how many generations were in the farm?
Thank you for sending the links.
But isn't that how you'd go about domesticating foxes? Take the ones that are easier to tame and breed them together? Traits that we want in domestic animals are often present in a wild population, they just aren't ubiquitous or consistent. I'll have to look more into this. I haven't heard about controversy in this experiment.
Even if it succeeded in breeding out human aggression, you can’t decouple that from dog aggression. A lot of attacks on people begin because pitbulls are trying to destroy someone’s dog. And while pitbull advocates have made it clear they don’t give a shit about dogs, only pitbulls, other people love their dogs too.
`And while pitbull advocates have made it clear they don’t give a shit about dogs'
Seems a bit of a generalization. The pit owners in my life are all dog lovers and have had different breeds before and after pits.
I confess total ignorance here, but I'm wondering if there's some confounding variable that could account for this - e.g., as sort of suggested in the episode, maybe the subculture around pit bulls selected for dog owners who are more likely to train their dogs poorly or maladaptively?
Based on my very limited experience as a dog owner, their behavior seems to be almost entirely dependent on how they are trained/treated by their owner, barring them being neglected/abused before being purchased or adopted.
There's nothing in particular to account for - actually-identified pit bulls/bullies aren't implicated in a statistically-elevated number of attacks.
I saw Katie's response to her detractors on Twitter, and I wasn't impressed. Is this episode her doubling down? If so, I don't know if I'll bother listening.
It's not just doubling down; it's the lowest form of response "I was bullied and threatened online and the counterarguments were stupid." She kind of admits she should've dug a bit deeper in parts but refuses to admit she's credulous and biased, in fact several times asserting she's neither while very clearly being both.
Idk I listen to this podcast for entertainment so it doesn't bother me, but if you take Katie seriously idk if you'll want to listen to this train wreck.
Selective breeding is the opposite of Lysenkoism.
I’m saying this is not a real breed, despite their claim to have made them more docile within a few generations. It’s existed since the 1990s. They’re claiming to have gotten rid of a phenotype (extreme aggression) which has existed in the breed for over 100yrs within 10 years (highly unlikely)
Even the claim from the geneticist was ambiguous as to whether he could identify the breed with DNA. Note: Katie did not mention whether the geneticist could identity a mutt with a parent dog that was bully XL.
If it's not a breed, then there's nothing to ban. You're making two arguments here that contradict each other.
No, this is not Lysenkoism. This is at worst over-optimism about the pace of artificial selection.
It's basic Mendelian genetics/inheritance---the same process dog breeders have been using for thousands of years. Lysenkoism doesn't enter into it, at all.
Feel free to disagree with Katie but let's not accuse her of being `unscientific' by attributing to her a view she does not hold.
Nope, this is not as simple as cross breeding pea plants. Behavior is controlled by thousands of genes, not 1-2. Claiming you’ve created a new breed after 1-2 generations with a different phenotype is pretty nuts, esp if that trait is something that has existed for much much longer.
I didn't say that it was simple or that it wouldn't take a long time, just that the same principles apply.
Breeding dogs is not Lysenkoism and making that comparison is not only inaccurate but, given the baggage that Lysenkoism carries, more than slightly over the top.
“It's basic Mendelian genetics/inheritance-“
Nope. We are talking about behavior, a trait determined by thousands of different genes with different inheritance patterns so it is literally not “basic Mendelian genetics”.
As such, definitely not Lysenkoism, right?
Certain breeds come pre-selected for docility, so wouldn't breeding them be a potentially successful way to select for that trait?
My dog knowledge is very limited, but there does seem to be a real thing that some dog breeds are more chill/less reactive than others.
Jesse's commitment to having windows work perfectly may be demonstrative of conscious or unconscious support for white supremacy culture and its foundational tenets.
I bet he's stalking trans people with shitty pre-war windows on "X" as we speak.
Katie, just know some of us have so completely lost all sense of appropriate boundaries that we will love you no matter what.
Like an elderly racist neighbor or hard-to-come-by apolitical PNW hairdresser, I will always be here for Katie.
The one last thing I’ve found frustrating is the docile breeding question. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Dave Wilson is trying to breed docile dogs, but I want to know whether he’s done so. That keeps getting lost under the question of whether he’s lying or not.
Even if Katie was legally married to Moose in the state of Washington I still wouldn’t unsubscribe.
I would demand to be invited to the wedding.
Bro same. I'll come in my doggy leather suit.
They need to go this as part of a subscription drive stretch goal
Agreed.
I would respect that. But please no "kissing" photos. Super gross.
But I would expect kissing audio in the podcast for premium subscribers. Like slimy ASMR.
RE: "Death numbers," i.e. that number of deaths per year vs. population seems small: Obviously a business will recall a product that kills a few babies or toddlers, sometime when it's only one fatality, or just risk of fatality. We parse death risk in many different ways. Most people drive even though the risk of dying in a car accident is not minuscule, but extremely burdensome multi-million car recalls happen all the time, even when no one has died. (One is in the news now, a Hyundai car, no fatalities reported, just the risk of fire from brake fluid leaks, more than 3 million cars recalled.)
What's different about dogs (rather than manufactured products) is that beyond the fatalities, there is so much more out-of-control harm, in human injuries and animal maulings and killings. It's kind of like how we all are alarmed at how many detransitioners we see on social media platforms despite the purporting by TRAs that hardly anyone regrets transition. We can see that there is certainly an alarming number of people harmed, even if that number is relatively small compared to the population, or even compared to all medical transitions. Someone who agreed to have their penis and testes removed or their breasts removed, when they regret it, we know how that is a tragedy beyond what should be tolerated in society. Their life is truly turned upside down forever.
I can't imagine how anyone can not see, all around them, the anecdotal evidence of how common it is that people are terrorized or harmed, or pets mauled to death or gravely injured because of the exponentially growing number of these dogs in the U.S. You could see it in just the comments section on this Substack for that episode, and there is no reason this podcast audience would be very biased when it comes to that particular event (having a bad run-in with a pitbull or bully kind of dog). (And to say these may not be THAT kind of dog when we see shelters overrun with them...well...it's absurd.) And so I think many of us have a disconnect in our understanding of why this podcast would go out of its way to parse these incidents and have so much concern over the misidentification of a breed and how that affects laws that seem so obviously protective, especially to children.
And I totally identify with the feelings that Katie expressed as far as stress. I make gargantuan mistakes in judgments about career and work-related things that make me sick to my stomach and I lose sleep, or even just simply worrying about what people think of something I did. But this is a life and death issue, truly, and so I think it's worth speaking up about, with apologies for any anxiety caused.
I mean, she said she'd support a pit bull ban, so I just don't know what more people want. Is nuance only OK when it's a topic we're not passionate about?
People are irrational about dogs.
Bring a dog with pointy ears to a dog park and a good number of owners will automatically leave or usher their dog away from the pointy-eared one. Airport security in the US is phasing out/minimizing GSD and like dogs from duty because people think they look scary, particularly because of their ears (even though they're some of the best dogs for the type of work)!
I try to keep that in mind when hearing about how dangerous pits are. I've been around pits and haven't seen it, including allowing them to grab and throw around my dog and him grabbing and throwing them around during play.
You’re unhinged about this and I doubt it relates to anything in your real life. Touch grass.
And on further thinking, I think Katie's principle that this is a "how the media's spread of misinformation influences laws" story is also what feels "off" about all of this. I am now agreeing with those who've posted and said that the bottom line is not whether to believe rogue trainer Wilson that these dogs were meant to be bred to be docile (and I still can't not roll my eyes at that...can we see those Bully XL ads again?) but whether they actually ended up BEING docile from his efforts. That's all that actually matters. Seems like a lot of evidence they did not turn out to be, and many of us would argue that it is scientifically impossible to have pulled that off anyway. And so, what are we really talking about here? A subset of misidentified dogs? Some activist groups not having solid numbers when we can all see before our eyes that this is at least SOMEWHAT of a very big problem that affects a huge swathe of people? Is that really a story? I don't understand the motivation here. And it's just so ultimately damaging to defend this rogue industry.
Agree 100. This was a bad case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Insane parsing of trivial claims about breeds while denying the very obvious fact that these dogs (whatever the breeders call them) are a problem.
ETA: This phenomenon of Demanding data so granular that it’s unobtainable while ignoring what’s right in front of your eyes is something I’m seeing more and more as of late.
It brings to mind the arguments about how many millimoles of testosterone in a male-to-female trans athlete are present after transition, ignoring the obvious and visible differences between one member of the team and all the rest.
Much of the scientific endeavor is concerned with eliminating biases, especially the common sense or `right in front of your eyes' variety.
And much of the current problem w/ science is that people throw theory and on-the-ground reality out the window and stare at (and massage) numbers until they see what it is they wanted to see. Both things are true.
Thus: "Puberty blockers are reversible" and "better a live son than a dead daughter" and other contrived bits of scientific fact that are being shown to be BS.
We don't need to abandon the scientific process simply because we don't like how it's being used/abused in some areas.
I obviously never said to abandon it. You're the one without the nuance here! Sheesh! Over and out.
Your experiences with dogs are very different than mine, so how are we to agree on what to do given the lack of data? I just don't see the patterns that you do; I am very probably wrong but I know how unreliable human observations are.
I'm not going to argue that the process isn't abused, because it is, but this isn't a reason to throw your hands up and say, `Well, I'll just believe what I see/experience,' because we know that approach is inherently biased.
Alas, much of the time these "scientific endeavours," as you call them, end up eliminating common sense.
See the Nate Silver Twitter kerfuffle going on today for more "isolated demands for rigour" nonsense.
This is data scientism.
Maybe? But often time common sense is wrong. The devices we're using to communicate with each other make use of physics that are mind bogglingly non-sensical.
Just don't agree that when there's a dispute about the data we should simply rely on `common sense'.
Can you give me some examples of where you see "common sense" being wrong. I tend to think it's almost always right and when it isn't, it's an exception-proves-the-rule situation.
Where I see people often go wrong is when they say things like "my gut tells me he's a killer."
FWIW here's the link to the Silver piece he wrote after people started demanding he do ridiculous things with data. It's not a perfect analogy to the pitbull podcast, but, in both cases, it's people (Katie and Silver's detractors) doing or demanding weird scientist things be done with data.
'Where I see people often go wrong is when they say things like "my gut tells me he's a killer."'
I guess you haven't read The Gift of Fear.
I have read the Gift of Fear and I absolutely support the message in it. Yes, when you are personally in a situation where timing is everything and being wrong would be catastrophic, trust your gut.
What I'm referring to here is people who I have never met or encountered someone saying their gut tells them the person is guilty. This is common in true crime forums and different from the scenarios described in the Gift of Fear.
OK. I thought you meant in-person encounters.
Longtime listener, I love the way Jesse and Katie address fraught and complicated topics like race and gender with reason, skepticism, and data.
HOWEVER, when it comes to [THING I CARE ABOUT] there’s absolutely no nuance, anyone who doesn’t agree with [MY POSITION] is a scum-sucking piece of shit who deserves to be set on fire.
Feel really bad that Katie is getting heat, c'mon people. That being said, she still provided nothing that supports that these Bully's are actually docile or if that its even possible to change that behavior in just 20 years outside of the breeder's word and a random newspaper article from 2010.
some of the comments on this and the prior episode have had the level of mental illness one would expect from an anonymous imageboard, and I don't feel like it was this weird even 8 months ago. but maybe that's just what happens when a "podcast community" grows really big.
I've been a paying member for a while but only started reading and engaging here in the last couple of weeks.
I am quite shocked by the comments. I feel like some people's tone is really gross.
Entitled?
It's a different vibe from the Reddit and not in a good way.
Kind of refreshing that we've found a new topic to squabble over, though.
Waiting for the synthesis of gender and pit topics now.
Remember folks: if you want fearless reporting on difficult subjects, you need to be nice to them when you disagree.
Asshole.
?
I don’t think I could have been clearer.
But... why?
The bully owners letting their dogs loose in the streets and dumping them in at the side of the road and in the woods sure make it sound like they’re a responsible group of people who should definitely own very large dangerous dogs.
Honestly I think we could solve this problem in the next 20 years if the pit-ban people got on the same team as the rescue people on the issue of actually breeding the dogs. Most people involved in serious animal rescue would absolutely LOVE to see bans on breeding pit bulls. (I do cat rescue, and I can say confidently that nearly all animal rescuers would love to see a ban on breeding all pets in areas where there are overpopulation problems, but I digress.) If the rallying cry was "Ban the BREEDING of pit bulls and bully mixes!" that would easily get rescue on board for that part of the issue - I mean, we're already there, we're the ones running around begging people to spay and neuter every dog and cat. What pit rescuers are concerned about is that breed bans could mean that their rescued pit-type dogs or others that will be rescued in the future could be taken away and euthanized. That's an entirely separate issue. But I genuinely don't see a way that any legitimate animal rescuer wouldn't fully support a pit *breeding* ban. It would be so easy and to sell it as both a cruelty-prevention measure as well as a people-protection measure.
Isn't this more or less what the UK is doing? The "ban" isn't really a ban in the sense of sending government officials door to door. Here's the BBC:
"The UK's chief veterinary officer Christine Middlemiss says there will not be a cull of American bully XLs, but the government will instead adopt an 'amnesty' approach.
"Owners will have to register their dogs and take certain actions, she says, adding: 'Your dog will need to be neutered. It will need to be muzzled when out in public and on a lead and insured.'
"If owners comply with these actions then 'yes, absolutely you will be able to keep your dog', she says."
I think the issue is about education, i.e., BREEDING ban, not really a breed ban. I also think there may be some deliberate efforts being made to rile up the animal rights/rescue community over this by the media for clicks, as well as fearmongering by those who breed pits/bullies for profit spreading false information about what a law like this might entail. Perhaps the U.K. registration is freaking people out as well, if it is a registration that is different in nature than what a typical dog license for any dog might entail (in the U.S. dog "licenses" are very commonplace and are universal, not breed-specific). I think there also may have been efforts in other places in the past that might have involved proposals that could have endangered existing dogs who had not done anything, and so now the words "breed ban" sparks the kind of mad discourse we've seen. And also, I do see how people who own rescue pit type dogs might be upset about the idea of their dog being given an reputation that they are part of a breed that's so aggressive that the breeding of the dog type has been banned, there is an idea of stigma that people don't want to have. But I think this can be overcome if people within the rescue community communicate to our peers that yes, we know the sweet bait-dog girl pit bull they rescued is the most gentle animal in the world, but the ban on breeding will stop the operations that led to her being a bait dog in the first place. The breeding of pit bulls is being done typically by either totally undesirable backyard breeders, or outright bad people doing it for criminal purposes. If effort is made to consistently utilize the phrase to "BREEDING BAN" or even "Puppy breeding ban" and put overwhelming focus on stopping all breeding operations of this type of dog, I believe that there will be a very big change in discourse in a few years, because rescue will should easily be able to get on board with that. The separate issue of aggression by existing animals is more difficult to navigate because of the complicated issues and feelings we've already seen discussed here in detail. I do not know how to handle that part of it easily. But the general problem can be resolved over the next couple of decades for the most part with breeding bans that emphasize animal welfare and the desire to protect dogs and people from horrible breeding practices.
I agree. It hadn't really occurred to me until your comment that some commenters here might not be properly distinguishing between simply owning a pitbull and being in favor of their breeding in general... Wow.
I have taken it for granted that bans specifically on breeding are infinitely more supportable by people who work with shelters/rescues than broader generic "bans" with ambiguous implementation plan for existing healthy dogs. Many pro-shelter/rescue people are the exact same people campaigning against unethical backyard breeding and in favor of spay & neuter policies for obvious animal welfare reasons.
At least in the United States (I don't know in the UK), it makes zero sense to assume any generic owner of a pitbull or pitbull mix supports their breeding in general, as opposed to simply giving a home to a dog. These dogs are so common in overflowing shelters and rescues, which euthanize tens to hundreds of thousands of dogs per year (across all breeds), that if prospective owners are qualified and have the means to take them in it's straightforwardly good for them to do so.
I do cat TNR and I agree re breeding. Very good distinction between breed ban vs breeding ban. I’m hearting the hell out of this comment.
Thank you for doing TNR! It's so important
"Some people who use/own this thing can't/won't use/own it responsibly, that's why we need to make it illegal to use/own altogether."
Every crusader for every ban of every thing ever.
I didn’t say a thing about a ban; I simply implied that they’re generally shitty people.
I'm glad I've reached a point in my life that I won't call a perfect stranger shitty on the internet for doing something that hasn't harmed anyone in 35 years. Peace out, Kathleen.
I think you got confused somewhere. She never said that doing something that hasn't harmed anyone in 35 years is shitty.
True. However, she has repeatedly posted how people who own PBs and PB mixes are shitty people. That’s what I was commenting about.
She said irresponsible owners. That is inherently potentially very harmful.
“I simply implied that they’re generally shitty people.” Forgive me if I don’t see the nuance here. It’s VERY clear what people who want to ban the breed think of the owners.
The irresponsible owners. Not all owners. At least that's how I interpreted it. You're forgiven, you seem very biased towards underestimating pitbulls. I don't care about pit bull owners, some are good if not ignorant and some are bad and dangerous. I just hate pit bulls.
Dang, my attempt at replying went onto its own new comment thread instead.
Pro pit ban people seem to be immune to being shown how incredibly problematic and unuseful their statistics are.
Not only Bully Watch in the UK, but dogsbite.org in the US which gets their fatal bite statistics by running Google News keyword searches.
Doubt any of you will be truly satisfied until all dogs >25 lbs are banned and euthanized on sight.
Not having reliable statistics doesn't invalidate a fact. It just makes that fact harder to prove. Anyone who thinks pit bulls aren't worse than other big dogs are just delusional. Do you think it's just a myth that pit bulls were bred for violence? Or do you think that fact is somehow irrelevant regarding dog attacks? Do you think the fact that more people have pit bull anecdotes than other dog types is worthless? Sometimes common sense can save us where there is a dearth of statistics.
What it doesn't invalidate is faith. The facts are that pit bulls are middling to low in aggression to humans (a thing they were never bred for) and a bit above average in animal aggression (a thing some used to be bred for and I'm sure a few still are).
I don't think we have any stats on how many people have anecdotes and if we did, the fact that they're massively popular could be at least a partial explanation.
So you think pitbulls are equally or less dangerous than GSDs? What about rottweilers? What about labradors? Or do you just throw up your hands and sincerely say that you have no idea?
My shelter GSD is the only dog I've ever received a severe bite from. He sunk a molar into a finger and held until I jabbed my thumb into his neck hard enough to make him yelp.
I think if pitbulls are more dangerous than GSDs and Rottweilers, it's only marginally so. Probably not labradors. I do not at all believe that Pitbulls are inherently dangerous or that they can't be owned responsibly.
I think people highly underestimate other large dog breeds like GSDs and over emphasize pits, and I don't really like pit bulls. Hell, my greyhound could be pretty fucking spooky when I first got him... They're big, carnivorous animals w/ large teeth, certainly capable of great harm.
A Great Dane who still had nursing pups at home got loose in my town yesterday. I pulled over to try and approach to read her tags and get her home. She began growling and barking while continuing determinedly on her original path before I'd even crossed the street or gotten within 20 feet of her and I wasn't about to ignore her warnings.
Luckily the owner had just posted about her so I was able to send them after her.
That they continue to explode in popularity and grow in numbers exponentially is part of the problem. That the high numbers could explain the high numbers is a tautology (if I am using that word correctly).
And RE: bred for animal aggression, humans are animals. And babies look like quadrupeds to a dog, thus their numbers being high in the anecdotal death total.
Not really. In Bully Watch's rebuttal to the first episode they cite irresponsible breeding as the reason a recent study came out saying the avg lifespan of French bulldogs in the UK is 4.5 years. Yet if you Google that the researcher himself says there's been a massive increase in French Bulldog ownership so young French Bulldogs are majorly over represented in the data, skewing the data downward. They can't seem to help themselves when it comes to using data to mislead in pursuit of their agenda.
If pit bulls are the dog of choice of new, inexperienced owners then they're going to be over represented in various ways that have nothing to do with accused immutable behavioral characteristics.
“Not having reliable statistics doesn't invalidate a fact” Read that sentence, please. You’re basically saying, “Whether it’s true or not , it’s still a fact!” At this point, you can’t be taken seriously, you’re a zealot.
You really don't understand that something can be true whether or not we have hard statistics on it? Your quote is totally wrong. The accurate one would be, "Whether or not I can definitely prove it or not, it's still a fact!" At this point you can't be taken seriously, until you learn basic logic.
You don't understand logic - facts have to be provable. You've already stated, "I just hate pit bulls." You're not someone to be taken seriously on this topic, like I said, you're just a zealot. Maybe one day you won't be blinded by hatred and will be able to have an adult conversation, until that day arrives, toodles.
facts DO NOT have to be provable to be facts. There is a discrete number of birds in flight the world, at any given moment. Are you saying that because we don't know the exact right number, that we don't have access to that data, that there isn't a discrete number of birds in flight in the world? Like I said, just a lack of basic logical understanding. Unfortunately, you do belong in an adult conversation; total illiteracy when it comes to logic and argument is everywhere. Congratulations on being part of that illustrious group.
your original point is that pits are worse than other big dogs and you have only backed it up with how you feel. again, you aren’t using logic. you’re just upset katie didn’t agree with you. you’re being a whiny bitch
Sorry, what was that about adult conversation again? You massive hypocrite?
Sorry, EmptySkull, for not believing your nonexistent stats from someone who says, and I quote, “I just hate pitbulls.”
I really wish there was a block function on Substack, because Skull is just not worth engaging with. Just an aggressive, angry person.
Apparently Katie made a fatal error in the first episode by trying to contextualise some anecdotal evidence with an alternative anecdotal narrative.
Now the stats are irrelevant and we should all just focus on that.
>Doubt any of you will be truly satisfied until all dogs >25 lbs are banned and euthanized on sight.
Yes actually, unironically.
This is a silly criticism of dogsbite.org. Did you ever start your research with a Google search? Does that invalidate your research? Whether or not the cases are initially surfaced via Google, dogsbite.org investigates the cases with all the relevant authorities.
I've seen this argument before, and it's either foolish or bad faith. It takes about a minute to find dogsbite.org's web page all about their methodology for statistics.
Right, but they don't investigate any cases with relevant authorities that don't make it onto Google News. They don't just start their research with a Google News search, it is entirely bound by Google News search's scope.
I never accused them of not checking with authorities on hits they got, I pointed out that relying solely on media reports for hits is highly prone to skewing. Your dismissal is either foolishly or in bad faith as it doesn't address what I've actually said.
Katie, of course the Pit Mommies were quiet. They know that their dogs are scary and eat babies. What’s there to say?
No, we just didn't want the hyperbolic mob to come our way. But just so Katie knows she does have a ton of support out there, here's one pit mom coming to her defense. Which, by the way, was that her beloved Moose was attacked by a pit. If we're looking for a champion for the cause in the UK it'll be Patrick Stewart, not Katie.
Hey I fully support her too, I just think she's wrong about pit bulls, and that her anecdote isn't worthless. Many, many people have pit bull anecdotes.
I don’t think her anecdote is worthless - she acknowledges her bias against pits because of that attack on Moose. But true to her/Jesse/BarPod reporting standards, she follows the data instead of the anecdotes.
She can't follow the data, there isn't any good data. The only mediocre data we have shows pitbulls being more dangerous than other breeds; her point is that it isn't good data.
Discovering the data is bad is another way of “following the data.” Mediocre data is not better than no data.
Semantics. Pit bulls are bad for society. They kill and maim people more than other dogs. If you want to ignore this and get a pit bull, at least keep it on a short leash.
You are monstrous and inhuman for owning a pit. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You have to remember that many of the people angry in the comments have had at least one very bad experience with pit bulls.
Reminds me a lot of my friends dad who hates Mexicans because a Mexican shot and killed his father. I get where he is coming from, but I don't agree with his reaction. Of course dog attacks can be scary and awful and I get the strong reaction, but that doesn't mean breed bans are right because belive it or not every pit is not a baby killer or dog aggressive. Breed bans mean more dogs killed unnecessarily
Nah, just a lot of deranged weirdos not worth engaging.
Yeah, sorry we can’t all find joy in terrifying our neighbors.
You should. No better feeling
Well hold on now. I just don't like doing it with pit bulls. I prefer much more reliable forms of terror and intimidation.
As BARPod Primos' resident cat supremacist, these are entirely too many podcasts about dogs. Why are Dog People™️ like this?
See how much better the cat drugs episode was than this one?
Imagine a house cat built like a pit bull
We would all be dead. 😅
Truly need to listen to it again like an ear cleanser now
After last week's pitty segment, I subscribed 3 times, just so I could cancel all my subscriptions at once to really show how mad I was. So there.
Ffs I swear dog breed legislation gets even crazier than trans issues
Great job, Katie! Perfect addendum, it was very informative.
I know some people will still yell at you, but I'm glad you wrangled such a tough subject, with crazy people on both sides.
Two episodes in two.five days? I must have been so good. Thanks Santa!
That’s what I was thinking! Let’s torture Katie and Jesse every week in the comments and we get more episodes! Yay!
😂😂😂😂😂😂 OMG Nooooooo but I did LOL. But no! I like them!
We have to hurt them BECAUSE we like them. It’s a cruel world Pam. 😈
If we want them to be resilient they have to learn to cope! It's TOUGH LOVE! Hell if we keep going down that route we can make them into Honorary Gen Xers 😂 (Or are they already cusp babies? I never know where the cutoff is! But if we toughen them up by roughing them up then they can firmly claim Gen X as their home.)
I AM KIDDING I BELIEVE IN LOVE let's all sing Kumbaya now
No way they’re GenX. I love them, but I know Millennials when I hear them. You’re right though, torture it is, for their own good. And yes! Let’s sing while we do it! I love a good sing-a-long too!
Are they GenX? I thought they were millennials - on the older side but still… I would love to claim them though. Katie would’ve been perfect for Reality Bites. Jessie… maybe a bit of Marty McFly meets Cameron from Ferris Bueller.
I think the "Gen" things are largely bullshit but you are correct, J&K are not technically Gen-X. I am extremely late Gen X, and my worldview and experience (world fucking goddamned sucks, can't really afford a house or cancer, etc.) is pretty much millennial. I despise vocal fry and uptalk though and suffered through owning a deep masculine voice my whole life, and also won't dye my hair or get face implants, so for all I know I present as Boomer.
Lol. I’m thinking “I present as Boomer” would be such a great t-shirt for any fed-up gen z. I am positive there are many.
"Boomer-Identified"!
Elder millennials but not xennials.
Ha! That is an intriguing comment! What are the tell-tale marks of a Millennial in your opinion?
Ha! You won’t trick me. (they’re all around us 😳) But you know.
literally lol'd 😂
This is ridiculous. Besides vocal aging signifiers (stratiation, fry, laryngeal spasm) it is impossible to tell. I have a friend who is Gen X but buys every single "trans kids are being genocided" and "racism is worse than ever" talking point. He wasn't born middle class either; he's from my neighborhood (but got out and now does indeed live a middle class life.) Indoctrination knows no language. I'm 38 years old and have an accent, I'm told, common to my particular region. If you heard me talk, I wouldn't display any of whatever "tells" you think a millennial has. How would you like it if I said I can tell Gen X when I hear them bc they have a cartoonish & adolescent view of the world based on a poisonous corporate irony sold to them as critical thinking by a corrupt ruling elite? That wouldn't be quite fair, would it?
`Fucking millennial.'
- Bad guy
`I'm a cusper you fucking psycho!'
- Natasha Lyonne (as Charlie in Poker Face)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYUtjIrT2RY
I was like, wait which Office reference is this. Then I saw the username. Also realizing that all Pam’s everywhere have to carry that association forever
This is what we call misaligned incentives
I’m listening to the intro and I have to say that I saw the tone of the comments section of the last episode and Grandpa Simpson style noped out of there - I’m sure I wasn’t the only one, which likely meant the comments were concentrated on the most heated/passionate and angry voices on this issue.
I guess this is the way of the internet, and is also why negative comments/emails/etc can be such a shitty barometer of how the majority of people feel about a given issue.
All of that to say - I thought the first episode was very well reported - and even if it wasn’t, sending dog attack videos and screaming emails to a reporter is fucking nasty behaviour.
In this house we believe Katie 👏🏻 is 👏🏻 the 👏🏻 best 👏🏻.
I feel like we were invaded by the Free Press comment section. Bizarre.
michael_scott_no.gif
As a British listener, I have to say that I thought the original episode was really excellent and nuanced, and the follow up was an exemplary and gracious response to criticism. Katie, you are completely correct that we need leash laws over here rather than demonising certain breeds, and also that there is a massive class bias in action. Thank you!
I’m not even going to unsubscribe if Jesse transitions and moves into ladies cycling. We don’t have to agree on every topic. Or even most. I enjoyed the first ep - liked the amount of research and the fact it challenged my assumptions.
Don't give him any ideas!
The comments section on this one is crazy. Katie seems to have done her due diligence. The critiques seem to be without any evidence (please, post links to your evidence if you got it) and about how she didn't cover some aspect of this 'controversy'. It seems like the evidence for both sides is lacking (which Katie does a good job showing) and yet people are getting butt hurt because they already know the truth.
Remember "It's complicated" and that people can have a different perspective on the internet without you getting upset.
It made me so sad to listen to Katie describe how stressed she was over the pit episode! Katie--what I took away from that episode was ‘damn! She does really extensive research for one podcast episode!’ And I thought the topic WAS relevant because it looked into how research and media and biases are nuanced. I was surprised people had such a negative reaction. Just know that for every hate mail you received there are many more of us who really appreciate all your hard work regardless if we agree with the conclusion. It seemed fair and balanced. BTW, after the original pit episode I decided to become a Primo, because I realized what an asshole I was for getting so much enjoyment from something that you guys put this level of journalism into. Kudos to you, keep it up!!
Hey Katie and Jesse. Just listened to your Bully XL follow up. As someone who had their favourite jeans ripped in an unprovoked attack by a boarder collie pup, I’m in no way qualified to comment on the Bully XL debacle. However, your most egregious mistake in the episode was in your pronunciation of Derbyshire. A bit too Dick van Dyke for my British ears. Please feel free to contact me for a fact check on British place names - I’m very cheap. Rob
They attempted ten different pronunciations and every one was wrong, it was quite impressive
Update the spellings of your neighborhoods and towns and we won't have this problem. =)
Will give you that Americans pronouncing `*shire' like it's somewhere hobbits live is pretty annoying, especially when we have a state named New Hampshire.
Is this Katie's Keffals saga?
Based on the community's reaction, it's more like her 'City Bike Karen' saga.
Tbf, Katie did do a lot of work on this one.
Katie, I find your reporting to be thorough, nuanced, and open to all points of view and this topic was no different. The mistakes were not indicative of bad faith or unchecked bias. Great job on this complicated topic :)
Been here since day one. Disagreed plenty of times, rolled my eyes, shouted into the void, bought a dozen evil pigeons for Jesse. But, pretty sure there is little if anything you could do to make me unsubscribe. I’d subscribe again if I could.
The only thing that could make me unsubscribe is ads in primo episodes.
CORRECT TAKE
I won't pay for streaming services, in part because I don't want to give my money and my seal of approval to a lot of what they produce, even if there's some old show on there that I like. That model doesn't work for me.
The Substack model is an investment in a particular person or a finite team of people. The level of commitment it entails does suggest that one should be willing to live with the good and the bad of whoever you decide to give your money to.
I don't think it's productive to cry out "I'm pulling my dollars if you do or don't do X" regardless of what X is. You're either on board or you're not.
I wasn't surprised by the reaction to the story, but I am a little surprised at how worried Katie would be that people would unsubscribe en masse. The whole point of this podcast is promoting engagement with controversial topics that people feel strongly about and often disagree with (which on this, I very much do). But to do so and not feel betrayed because you're beliefs weren't being validated.
Agree. I love disagreeing here. It’s nice to not have to be in lockstep about everything, even important things — yet still be friends.
I read a book years ago called “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)” and it talked about how we often wish, when we think someone we care about has made a mistake, to either
— stop being friends with them because they made a mistake, or
— convince ourselves that it wasn’t really a mistake so we can be comfortable remaining friends with them.
I see this dynamic play out all the time now that I’m aware of it.
A quote I remember from the book (Clinton maybe? I don’t know) was something like “A friend is still a friend, and a mistake is still a mistake”. I love this. No-one should expect their friends to be perfect. And sometimes we’re the mistaken one.
I think this community has a real chance of practicing liking and caring about people who we sometimes think are wrong (each other, and J&K). I wish Katie could see that *most* of the disagreement is entirely in that spirit.
I was really struck by section of the podcast where Katie, quite thoughtfully and humbly, discussed the things that she could have done different/better in the previous episode. I don’t always agree with the conclusions she and Jessie come to, but I continue to subscribe because I can count on them to have integrity -- to approach issues with an open mind, to engage in good faith with their critics, to apply the same standards of rigor in evaluating both opinions they agree with and also disagree with.
I hope Katie doesn’t let any of the negative comments get her down!
Dear Katie,I love practically everything you say or do–Probably in a borderline unhealthy way for a straight dude..still,most of us sensibles know better and respect your process as a journalist.
It’s total balls that it’s keeping you up, and thanks for sticking your arm in the bee hive.
The painless way to performatively make a statement about Barpod content is to get an annual subscription and THEN loudly cancel. With luck you’ll have months bf you have to (quietly) renew.
Honestly this should have been a community post not an entire episode.
Making the audience listen to Kathie trying to defend an unpopular position that she had an entire previous episode to get across makes for a straining listening experience.
You guys can find me in the archives.
Pervert for Nuance 4-eva
I'm team "who fucking cares" for the most part. But I am a professor and social scientist and the criticism of Bully Watch's numbers drove me absolutely batty.
First off: Bully Watch is an activist group, they're not submitting their shit to a peer-reviewed journal. They have no duty to be objective; they're trying to push a narrative. If they give a number, it's the duty of reasonable people to be skeptical of it. Katie was if anything too skeptical, so we're fine there.
But the other half of this is that _there is no better data available!_ They went through Facebook and Nextdoor posts not because the official numbers didn't give their narrative the oomph they needed, it's because there are no official numbers. I thought Katie was far too quick to dismiss the data that Bully Watch had compiled because it was probably wrong and she then seemed to use "biased" as a synonym for wrong. But biased doesn't mean wrong, it means that it's consistently wrong in one particular direction which gives a poor understanding of the underlying data process. If I'm studying people who have had a medical treatment and only follow-up with people who are still taking that treatment in six months, for example, the bias would be in excluding people who quit the treatment because it wasn't working (or had died, etc).
What's the theory of bias in the Facebook/Nextdoor data set? That people aren't going to report non-pit dog bites? That pit bites are going to be repeatedly posted? I could see a situation where non-serious dog bites are being kept off of social media, but that doesn't really invalidate the point so much as shade it a bit.
All this is to say: I kind of think that the data is fine, or at least good enough to not dismiss out of hand without some sort of competing data set. Katie talked to a bunch of stats profs who correctly said that adding biased data would exaggerate the underlying bias, but I strongly suspect that the question asked to those professors wasn't about the specific underlying data but rather about somewhat more zoomed-out questions about statistical bias that she just kind of asserted and didn't interrogate further.
I'm not going to advocate for or against pit bans or extensions of existing bans. But I also think that enough data exists in public that triangulate to the idea that big, strong, jacked-ass dogs that are meant to be scary seem to be overrepresented in violent incidents, and nothing Katie said poking holes in the stats that Bully Watch put forward had any effect on that opinion.
Thank you, I’m in the social sciences and had the same reaction.
She criticized BullyWatch for saying that any misidentifications will be corrected with more data, with the idea that more biased data yields more bias. But it seems pretty clear that BullyWatch’s working assumption is that any errors are random, not systematic, in which case more data *would* help. She can argue that assumption is questionable but it’s not clear what evidence she has that it’s wrong.
“First off: Bully Watch is an activist group, they're not submitting their shit to a peer-reviewed journal. They have no duty to be objective; they're trying to push a narrative. If they give a number, it's the duty of reasonable people to be skeptical of it. Katie was if anything too skeptical, so we're fine there”
Her reason for focusing on it was that it’s been picked up the media unquestioningly and then is being potentially used to drive legislation. It would seem perfectly reasonable to pull apart the data.
Secondly, she stated on multiple occasions that she believed BullyWatch were doing the best they could and there was no better data.
Should any criticism be directed more strongly at credulous media & politicians? Sure, but I’m at a loss as what the problem with Katie’s focus was, as it seems perfectly reasonable to be concerned that poor data produced by an activist group is driving potential legislation.
We love you Katie. If there are subs who bounced because of an episode? Uhh fuckin byeee losers
I signed up to a premo account after listening to the first Bully episode. Had no idea it was so controversial.
I had no idea the bully episode got that amount of reaction. Honestly I could not really muster any interest in wether a dog race was wrongly accused of being dangerous or not, especially if said race is basically a substitute penis for insecure male owners.
I think these days they’re more likely to be owned by nice white ladies.
Sometimes dog owners don’t even know what kind of dog they have. My family had a dog who came from the Humane Society who said she was a German Shepherd, Airedale cross. For years, we thought that’s what she was. But finally, we did a DNA test and it said she was everything but Airedale; she was a German Shepherd, a Lab, a Rottweiler, a Doberman, and...a Collie. Finding this out made me wonder what else the Humane Society had gotten wrong. Was she really three years old? Had she really been a stray? We’ll never know, I guess.
Shelters lie all the time. Like telling this woman a dog was a "lab mix" - anyone not legally blind could see it's a pit bull. It ripped open a child's face the first day they brought it home. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11894933/Toddler-loses-half-smile-savaged-rescue-pup-ate-face.html
Yeah, they shouldn’t call something an “x mix” if it doesn’t look like x. That dog doesn’t look like a lab to me. At least the dog they said was an shepherd/airedale mix looked like those things. And she was a pretty good dog. Opinionated but good.
Yeah a shaggy mutt being a "collie mix", sure. But it seems like they're especially fudging the identity of pits to make them more adoptable.
That 100% happens, I have been hearing that for decades regarding hard to adopt breeds and a friend who works at shelters confirmed they totally lie about breeds all the time to place dogs.
I mean if they don’t the dog could die, and everyone knows a dog’s life is more important than your 3 year old’s face!
I mean, since the UK has banned pit bulls then it must not have been a pit bull or else there'd have to be courts and all sorts of legal hoops to jump through even if it were allowed to live.
In the US, there are tons of rentals with breed restrictions owners and potential owners want to get around, as well.
Bans encourage fudging paperwork whether out of laziness or out of not wanting to see an animal die or be neglected regardless of its actual temperament due to what breed it is or looks like it could be.
The linked story was a tragedy but who the hell gets a large adult shelter dog of any breed for their very small child? And to be letting it have uncontrolled interactions with it literally the day after bringing it home?
There's no way she had time to see if the dog displayed signs of resource guarding, of lashing out when startled, of just getting grumpy at times and not wanting to be touched...
The story I linked to took place in Louisiana. Which last I checked isn't part of the United Kingdom and hasn't banned pit bulls.
I will say that if the shelter knew the lady was bringing a shelter dog back for her 3 year old daughter, they should have given some warnings or possibly even refused to give them that dog depending on circumstances.
Idk how strict they are there about verifying home environment before allowing a dog to be adopted but the shelter near me almost wouldn't let me adopt my GSD because it didn't get along right away with my other dog. I showed them I had enough space in the house to keep them physically separated while acclimating so they agreed to let me foster for a bit before deciding if I could actually adopt the dog.
Without more details it's hard to tell whether the case was a shelter irresponsibly pawning off a pit bull on an inexperienced owner who had a small child without warning or if an inexperienced owner came in and beligerently demanded she be given that one she saw while not giving details about home environment such as the presence of a small child.
That's my bad, I assumed Daily Mail would be talking about UK events.
I still mentioned tons of rentals in US with breed restrictions. And a quick Google of pit bans in Louisiana gets a list of several different cities. Slidell hasn't banned them but its shelter could very plausibly be getting pits from cities that would kill them. Regardless it's going to be way harder to adopt out a dog that's banned by many portions of the state and in many rental applications than one that isn't.
How the Hell did anyone think that was a "lab mix"?!?!? Had any of these people ever seen a dog before?
Don't underestimate stupid. Inexperienced pet owner, who has been sold on the "rescue dog" narrative, gets hoodwinked by shelter.
They're not stupid just because they don't know what different kinds of dogs look like. Hoodwinked, yes. Inexperienced, yes.
I adopted a dog that doesn’t look like a pit bull and the dna test came back at 36% American Pit Bull Terrier, which is a plurality of all the other breeds. The other largest two are Australian Cattle dog at 24% and Great Pyrenees at 14%. I don’t know how much breed matters when there are 7 breeds named and then 20% of a separate category called “supermutt” because they couldn’t list all the others. When we were considering adopting him, my husband grabbed him suddenly to see if he was the type of dog to react and he just went limp. We took him around other dogs, and he wanted to play but only wanted to be chased, not chase other dogs. He is sweet and dumb, and easily bullied by the huskies at the park. Huskies are intense.
Supermutt would make a great comic book
After listening to the most recent episode, I’m truly outraged...by Katie & Jesse’s inability to pronounce Derby & Derbyshire. It’s Darby & Darbyshuh.
As punishment they need need to read out.
Shropshire
Leicestershire
Worcestershire
Slaithwaite
Durham
Gloucestershire
Bournemouth
If they get even vaguely close to how locals pronounce Slaithwaite without Googling I’ll double my subscription.
It's like Bryde's Whale actually pronounced as "broodus" 😎
In the case of Slaithwaite, it’s commonly pronounced Slathwaite just dropping the first I, but locals say Sloughwit which makes no logical sense.
Meh. Only ones worth remembering how to pronounce involve cheese.
=)
That would include Derby, Leicester, Gloucester, Shropshire.
Helpfully Shropshire Blue is from Scotland and has nothing to do with Shropshire.
Sort f like Wisconsin producing a cheese called Arkansas Red
Shropshire Blue? Wasn't that just a marketing tactic? Also too new to be a proper British cheese.
I stand by my comment.
It seems the name was, first made in the 70s as a variant of Stilton.
If Cheese knowledge meant no American ever said Lie Chester ever again I’m all for it :)
I will not stand for Stilton overshadowing or erasure!
`If Cheese knowledge...'
Agreed!
(Enjoying a Cornish Kern now as the Leicester mysteriously disappeared).
I think this is one of those stories where it would have really helped to have an editor.
During the first Pitbull episode, Katie provided a lot of information — some of it dubious — for no clear reason. There was no coherent thesis or narrative.
Given his background, Jesse should have seen the flaws, but he can’t or won’t edit his business partner, which is understandable.
I don’t know why Katie didn’t consult her father or maybe she did.
It just doesn’t make sense to say pit bulls and pit bull adjacent dogs aren’t dangerous, don’t believe your lying eyes, and BTW breed bans don’t work anyway.
They clearly are dangerous even if the data is patchy at this point.
Hey Katie - my guess is that for every listener that feels passionately about the dog issue there are at least 20 like me who vaguely saw a headline elsewhere; thought the podcast episode was interesting. Then just moved on with my day because I don't care very much about the topic.
I'm pretty sure these are the first two episodes I haven't made it through. Just not interested in the topic, I guess. But I can imagine it being a minefield. Sorry you're getting hassled, Katie.
I wonder if death data could be useful here? As in, wouldn’t veterinarians have records for dogs who were put down because of a biting incident? Rather than relying on victim description/social media posts.
Oh god no not again
Who TF sends horrible videos like that to someone just because he or she said something "wrong" on a podcast? GTFO whoever you are.
Days like these make me feel the internet was a mistake.
Sometimes you can't win for losing (or something to that effect).
Instead of getting on a microphone and declaring, " I hate pitbulls - they should all be put down.", Katie tried to be fair to the pitbull defenders, who we know are legion and very passionate.
I personally can't stand the sight of pitbulls (sue me, I'm not much of a dog lover anyway) but I thought Katie did a commendable job under the circumstances, primarily the absence of solid, unbiased data.
I'm confident that those who truly appreciate K&J will continue to subscribe. It's no real loss when people who jumped on just to rant about this one issue go back to whence they came.
Absolutely! 100% in agreement there.
Not surprised this happened. The last ep was the first one I’ve skipped entirely. My dog who passed just a few months ago at age 11 was on three legs from a puppy thanks to a pit bull attack, which I witnessed. I have too much emotion tied up with this issue to be rationale, so I generally just avoid the topic altogether.
That's just awful, I'm sorry, but I do commend your mature choice not to engage!
Katie - loved both episodes, thank you for both. I love when you all find these stories. My hot take is that doodles are vastly overrated. But all your inquiries are outstanding.
Katie: “Are we a family?”
Yes, but only in the Manson family sense.
Obviously pibble discourse is the worst thing on the internet but also it’s so damn funny my word. Anyway good ownership is a pretty good bet for raising a pittie that won’t eat your toddler, but the risk still exists in general because these are dogs that were developed for fighting and boar baiting, then selected to be the meanest fuck around.
Katie really got bullied over her reporting.
I'm available for parties and bar mitzvahs
Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I was very surprised about the reaction to the episode.
After listening, I was like 'wow, what an extensively researched story on a niche issue I know nothing about'. Then checking the comments, it was like WW3.
Wow, I thought Katie did good reporting in the first episode. These ban nuts sound like... nuts.
UK gov't gon' keep on doin its thang
Wow, if you have to do genetic testing on these types of dogs to disentangle the american bully percentages from pits, then just ban them all! Good on the UK. But who cares, because in libertarian US, no dogs, no matter how vicious, will get banned. I lived in Switzerland, where all pits werre banned, and it was so nice. No sociopaths (or hipsters) walking down the street with scary-looking dogs. No news reports on horrible maulings by dogs so strong, no one can pry their mouth apart. However, I won't stop being a patron, just because I don't agree with you guys. This isn't the first time.
To back Katie, I'm going to subscribe twice. Sure, I'll have to give blood for money twice a week now, but what's a little anemia to support my favorite podcaster? (Sorry Jesse)
I still don’t understand why people were so pressed about that episode, so much so that they were threatening unsubscribing. Maybe get a life?
I said something nice earlier so here's something mean: infer is not a synonym for imply.
I thought the episode was careful, fair and well-thought-through. Banning these dogs - rather than slowly phasing them out or whatever - is not possible. It's just not. Stray dogs mate and dogs are born. Are you going to then say "oh they have to be killed"? I get the conflicts on the issue but I thought Katie did a really good job. It is that Katie loves animals as much as she does keeps me from UNSUBBING.
To be fair, it has always been the case that bans don’t mean destroying all of a breed in existence - just banning breeding them and selling them and for existing ones to have to be kept under close control and muzzled.
But Pits should be rounded up p and euthanized. That's the point.
Hey Katie, sorry to hear you were stressed-out about all this. For the record, I thought you were mostly wrong in your initial analysis (although the combination of both episodes has softened my position somewhat). I also gave you some shit on Twitter (somewhat constructively I hope).
Anyway, I just wanted to say there is no chance of me quitting my subscription just because you take a stance I disagree with (do people really do this?). You've consistently shown yourself to be a brave person with a commitment to the truth as you see it.
I still haven't listened to the first episode but I found the analysis of stats in this episode extremely convincing.
I was vaguely pro ban but I am leaning towards anti ban now.
And this is why reporting like this is so damaging. It SOUNDS nuanced and reasonable, to people who aren't aware how much of what she said is from the propaganda playbook.
Firstly how is it damaging? Explain the damage.
Secondly how have I been duped? I thought we had convincing stats, Katie explained that we do not.
We have some stats but they are nowhere near as good as I (personally) would want for a ban that will, undoubtedly, cause harm to animals and misery for people. Are you implying we *do* have those stats and Katie is hiding them?
Accusing somebody of spreading propaganda without a shred of evidence is a bold play.
Damaging because people are led to believe that it's safe to have these dogs as pets.
So Katie's factual reporting is damaging.
People can't be trusted with the truth?
Katie's accurate summary of events will offset the absolute hysteria of the British press?
Our stats are extremely shit but I would bet money that XL bullys are statistically safer than any number of household objects.
If people are only posting their most severe bites online doesn’t that mean the actual number of pitbull related bites is higher than reported?
It's the severe bites that matter. No one cares about the other ones, and why would they?
Oh, I just realized I misunderstood the original post and you are saying that for every post of a severe bite there are many who have not posted their severe bite. Definitely! Great point!
What if people are more likely to post about a bite if it was inflicted by a pit-type dog than other breeds?
Then that would be awfully convenient for pitbull apologists.
That is just one of many problems with that method of data collection.
The line about Katie marrying Moose was disgusting, and I am now unsubscribing. I believe marriage is between a dog and a dog; anything else is an affront to good taste.
Katie and Jesse are so careful, so humble, and so thorough that even when I disagree with them I still respect their positions. It’s rare and why I pay for this podcast.
Circumcised Bully’s of the Roman Empire. Can’t wait.
Weird question and I really don't mean to question the victim but this story is really bugging me...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2023/03/24/3-year-old-louisiana-girl-can-no-longer-smile-after-dog-bite/amp/
This story only seems to be touched on by weird news sources. Nypost cites Daily Mail whose images all have a watermark for "Kennedy News & Media" which appears from their website to be a viral marketing platform more than a source of straight journalism.
Why can't I find any news agencies in Louisiana reporting about this vicious dog attack that happened in Louisiana? The Slidell Animal Shelter doesn't even have a single recent negative review mentioning how they give man-eating dogs to women with small children, either. Pulling up a local Slidell news agency (4WWL) for their names gets no results and there aren't any recent stories about a pit bull attacking a child.
I'm not near certain enough to call fake on such a tragic situation but it does fairly well show the problem with scraping news and social media to cobble together dog bite statistics. If not for UK media somehow, this Louisiana dog bite would never have been captured in a way that could be scraped.
Found the mom's Facebook and she does have a kid recovering from serious facial damage so there definitely does appear to have been some sort of attack. Unfortunately no public posts detailing the saga.
But like Miffee pointed out, the dog's breed is very much in question and changes depending on the source. Daily Mail put up a picture of what certainly looks like a pit bull in their article but makes no claim that the pictured dog is the dog that the story is about. It's just captioned that the mom suspects her dog may have had some pit bull in it.
That's really interesting. The Mail says that it was fostered as a Lab- Retriver mix but mum suspects it may have "some pitbull"... meanwhile the GoFundMe states it was a pit bull as fo many other outlets that picked it up.
A real example of what Katie described.
The inherent problem in this discussion is that so many dogs have so many breeds running through their DNA. Unfortunately a dog bite is not like getting run over by a car where a license plate or VIN gives definitive information. A Honda Civic is not a Cadillac Escalade, which is not a Ford Escort.
Does a dog's breed tell us anything about it's behavior, particularly aggressive behavior?
The largest and most recent study, by Morrill et al sequenced DNA of >2000 dogs and looked at genetic correlates of various behaviors. Some behaviors were weakly inherited, but aggressive behaviors were not predicted by breed. (Kathleen Morrill et al. "Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes". Science376,eabk0639(2022).DOI:10.1126/science.abk0639)
The authors concluded: " For less heritable, less breed-differentiated traits, like agonistic threshold (factor 5), which measures how easily a dog is provoked by frightening, uncomfortable, or annoying stimuli, breed is almost uninformative.
Attempting to eliminate certain behaviors by dog breed bans may be based on pseudo-science, or popular prejudice.
Here is the paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639
It was a survey that asked owners of purebred and mixed breed dogs to plot their pups on a likert scale for statements like "DOG seeks companionship from people," "DOG behaves aggressively in response to perceived threats from people" and "DOG is a people person." Only 10 of the items were about the dog's disposition toward people, and none asked specific questions about aggressive behavior, like whether the dog had ever bitten a person.
The paper was an attempt to investigate genomic correlates of a range of canine behaviors. Owners answered, on average, >100 questions per dog. It's true that aggressive behavior was only one of eight behaviors investigated (with 10 questions for each of eight behaviors). The questions asked on behavior were sourced from "previously published and validated surveys" such as the Dog personality Questionnaire (45 questions) and the Dog Impulsivity Assessment Scale (18 questions), so that the results of this survey could be meaningfully compared with other published research-a standard methodologic study design.
This study was not specifically a study focused solely on aggressive behavior in dogs. Nevertheless, it provides the best look, so far, at the relationship between dog "breed" and behavior, and suggests that the main inherited differences between breeds are aesthetic, not behavioral.
I do think it's an interesting paper. The key finding (that individual behavior within breeds varies much more than aggregated behavior between breeds) is much stronger than most people would intuit. I just don't think it's suited for this question, for a few reasons:
1. Serious dog attacks on people are VERY rare, and multiple attacks are often attributed to the same dog. If you look at the stats, you should already assume a lot of variation with aggression-prone breeds — most of them never bite a person, or there would be a lot more ER visits!
2. The questions asked would not distinguish a dog that growled or snarled from one thatb bit, and it left it to owners to determine what behavior counts as "aggressive." It's very possible that a person who chooses a miniature poodle as a pet has a very different idea about what counts as aggression than a person who chooses a pitbull.
3. The cluster of questions labeled "socialization with humans" — which contains items about aggression —also asks about the dog's interest in people, enjoyment of human companionship, willingness to be hugged, etc. By all accounts, most pitbulls are very human-oriented and affectionate! Unlike dogs bred for solitary tasks like livestock guarding, they tend to like being close to people. Even pits that eventually attack a person are often described as great family pets prior to the attack. I suspect that the model of aggression inferred here is not a very good one.
That actual dog-on-human attacks are rare events, and therefore unlikely to be explained by a study such as this is a fair point. Perhaps the general design of this study, relating genomics to observed behavior in a relatively representative population of dogs, could work with a more focused study looking at DNA analysis of dogs whose owners self-report an attack on a human. (?) The statistical power would not be as great, obviously, as the number of participants would likely be much smaller, given the rarer end-points.
I also agree that surveys of dog owners on their pet's behavior are unfortunately, but necessarily, subjective. I don't know how else we can get at individual dog behavior in a canine population though, except through a questionnaire of some sort.
Your final point falls back on the anecdotal, conventional wisdom that PBs are "human oriented", "affectionate", "like being close to people", yet somehow prone (?) to transgressive and surprising aggression. That all may be true, but it is interesting that the Morrill study, using a less fine grained lens on dog behavior overall, didn't find much support for any of the conventional wisdom on breed behavior.
That's a fair criticism. To clarify, my argument was that if you're using a small number of subjective questions to model each of these traits before analyzing their heritability, it matters A LOT whether you're asking the right questions. Any question that isn't actually relevant to the trait you're concerned about can be expected to add a lot of noise. I don't think the "sociability to humans" questionnaire does a great job of modeling a trait that would be a proxy for aggression (and it wasn't necessarily meant to).
That said, the authors published a MASSIVE set of infographics about their data (which are very fun to look at) and I'm seeing now that this wasn't a situation where pits did very well on questions about liking people and very poorly on questions about threat response or aggression. They actually were solidly middle-of-the-road on all human socialization questions: https://www.science.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1126%2Fscience.abk0639&file=science.abk0639_sm.pdf
(pg 39)
Even allowing that Morrill et al did not completely nail down the issue of super-aggression (human biting) behavior, if they're correct that dog behavior is only very weakly associated with breed DNA, it begs the question of the effect of dog raising (environment) on aggressive behavior.
One of the concerns I have is that Pit Bulls may tell us much more about their owners, which is to say their upbringing and environment, than about their genes. It's entirely possible that certain owners desire certain characteristics in their dogs (e.g. aggression) and raise them to act in that way. Theoretically, any dog could be taught to be very aggressive toward unknown humans and other dogs. If that is true, knowing a dog's phenotype (breed)-or DNA for that matter- when it is obtained from a breeder or the SPCA would tell us next to nothing about its propensity for violence in the future. To know whether a dog is at risk for biting a human, you really would want to know how the human owners raised the dog.
That might contradict the conventional story of "he was such a sweet dog until he bit that baby!"- which has become such a trope that it's hard to dismiss it entirely.
While I find the results interesting, I don't actually give them a whole lot of weight. The same handful of breeds tend to dominate obedience, agility and herding trials, purpose-bred working dogs have been used for various jobs for centuries because they do tend to do those jobs better, and pits aren't used in dog fighting because they look like they are able to win, but because they actually do. A survey in which dog owners give a wide variety of responses to subjective questions about their dogs' personalities regardless of their breed doesn't provide a lot of evidence that extreme behavior isn't heritable.
There are many, many pit owners who claim that their dog was a beloved family pet who showed no human aggression until it suddenly "snapped." There is no test that will prove or disprove this. There is no way to know whether a pit in a shelter was always treated kindly. I'm not sure the question should concern policy makers at all.
"... doesn't provide a lot of evidence that extreme behavior isn't heritable."
It's very hard to prove a negative in science, particularly when it comes to the cause of rare events. The lack of positive evidence that extreme behavior is inherited is about the best we're going to be able to demonstrate.
I agree that, from the POV of policy makers, it may not matter whether extreme behavior is inherited or acquired (taught). If PBs and Bullies are doggy angels at birth but taught to be hypervigilant and violent by their owners, if you're the UK government you may still want to ban them.
This survey doesn't produce any direct evidence for or against the heritability of a propensity to attack humans because it didn't ask any questions about that.
You're using it to argue that any evidence for significant variability of personality traits within breeds (relative to between breeds) is tantamount to evidence that breed doesn't predict that kind of violence.
I'm pointing out that an identical assumption could be made about any "extreme" behavior — herding, guarding, escaping/wandering, retrieving, and so on. Do collies and heelers only herd better because they're raised to do that? Would a properly trained husky do just as well? Do golden retrievers absolutely dominate obedience trials because of bias? Could a lab make a great personal protection dog if he were trained for that?
People who spend a lot of time working with dogs will point out that none of that makes any sense; the volume of evidence that certain breeds do certain jobs better is enormous. Further, you would *expect* to find variability within breeds regarding extreme behavior, because everyone who breeds and trains working dogs knows that regression to the mean is a significant issue and most dogs within a working breed aren't actually suitable for work.
It would also be silly to argue that all pitbulls are killing machines, but that isn't the argument.
What happens to the owners of dogs that have attacked and hurt or killed people in the US? I’ve always just assumed that if your dog kills or maims someone, there’s some sort of criminal liability for the owner, but a quick Google search shows some places are pretty lenient. Surely that can’t be right. Not to be morbid, but if it were so easy to get away with that, I feel like more murderers would be using attack dogs instead of guns.
Well, it’s assumed that the owner is merely negligent; sometimes not even that. Negligence can be a tort but it’s usually not a crime. I think in most states you need to have a really egregious situation before the criminal law will get involved with a dog attack.
The states handle this, and depending on the jurisdiction the law can be quite lenient. In many cases it's considered a civil matter. Often the decision to destroy the dog is at the judge's discretion, even if the dog has killed a person or caused grievous harm.
I understand the psychology of saying your audience was howling mad to cover up the hard to face fact that your audience was disappointed at your shoddy reasoning and reporting, but saying that is for you not us.
And for the record, I don't even live in a country that has pit bulls, this isn't an issue I care about at all. Just... listening to Katie talk about dogs is like listening to Michael Hobbes about fat people.
"We can't trust the data at all..."
"Labs show up a lot in the data."
Katie you're either too rattled or too close to this story. I get it, I used to be a journalist and there were stories I did a bad job on because they hit too close to home. Move on, you suck on this topic (but don't forget you're very good on many others).
No dude, you suck, and given your shitty comments up and down the thread? Probably not just on this topic.
Your well thought-out rebuttal is a valuable contribution to this internet community.
The irony.
Found the dude who sent Katie pitbull attack videos lmao
You are being too hard on Katie imo, but your Hobbes simile is epic. I am staring VERY disapprovingly at you Michael!
I think Katie should record every new episode in the presence of a different American XL Bully without a leash or muzzle.
Okay, so, "Some people who use/own this thing can't/won't use/own it responsibly, that's why I think everyone who uses/owns this thing is a shitty person."
Every person who sat back and enjoyed the work of crusaders for every ban ever.
The episodes are about the very real ban against pit bulls in the UK and many other places and the seemingly high likelyhood that American Bullies will soon be banned in the UK.
Thanks for this comment. I was bitten in the face by a Collie as a child and by a Cocker Spaniel. We've owned Pits/PB mixes for 35 years. Not one has bitten or shown aggression ever (we have two children and their friends were over all the time). I would never call owners of Collies and Cocker Spaniels shitty people but I've read a ton of vitriol on this thread that's hard not to take personally.
I don't like pits but I gotta align myself more with your mode of thinking cuz to do anything else would be hypocritical given my feelings about other things... principles are important
This is very controversial and also very boring.
A pedos & pitties episode seems an appropriate follow up.
Katie, did you say something about the UK not having leash laws, or you were told this by Lawrence?Must have been a miss-understanding. The law states you are not allowed to have a dog off a leash (or lead, as we say) when you are near a road, so it's very, very rare to see a dog just strolling around on a pavement (sidewalk) off a lead. We are the country of rules and regulations, no way would we be so lax!
I'm genuinely excited to hear about Jessica. She's risen from mere preemie to fully-fledged step sibling and I feel somehow really proud.
Para-social relationships are totally weird and I never had any, until lockdown and the Jack Monroe threads on Tattle. Just like Jessica, I dropped out of there a while ago, but I still have real affection for some posters like her and always notice when she likes one of my comments on here.
An 80s baby with forensic skills and a European outlook - Blocked and Reported will benefit from having her! Lets' leave the canine drama behind and focus on hair colours in Spanish, knitting drama and budget cooks.
Thanks again Katie for examining a controversial topic with nuance. Maybe some day you will meet my dog Sirius, who will love you effusively. I think he looks like an American Pit Bull Terrier, but he could be a lab for all I know. He might not get along with Moose.
I’m sorry about any harassment or abuse received. Totally out of line and undeserved.
I don’t expect to agree with every take on this show or even find every one them interesting enough to listen to. That’s true of all media. It’s fine.
On the dog issue though, I don’t think it’s really appreciated that these dogs are primarily sold to and mistreated by people who relish their image as a fighting dog, and in many cases are looking to fight them. The issue is only partly the breed, either pit or bully - although they are massively muscular dogs - but mostly the context of who buys and breeds them. If that’s snobbery, ok, I’m a snob against people who fight dogs or enjoy people wondering if they do. If they were fighting Pomeranians I’d have concerns too, but they don’t.
`these dogs are primarily sold to and mistreated by people who relish their image as a fighting dog'
On what evidence is this assertion based?
original research
Contradicted by my own original research.
An impasse.
I didn’t read any of these as I’m too lazy to use a computer with access but they all had the expected “water is wet” findings:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17065657/
Our matched sample consisted of 355 owners of either licensed or cited dogs that represented high or low-risk breeds. Categories of criminal convictions examined were aggressive crimes, drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, crimes involving children, firearm convictions, and major and minor traffic citations. Owners of cited high-risk ("vicious") dogs had significantly more criminal convictions than owners of licensed low-risk dogs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19302402/
A total of 869 college students completed an anonymous online questionnaire assessing type of dog owned, criminal behaviors, attitudes towards animal abuse, psychopathy, and personality. The sample was divided into four groups: vicious dog owners, large dog owners, small dog owners, and controls. Findings revealed vicious dog owners reported significantly more criminal behaviors than other dog owners. Vicious dog owners were higher in sensation seeking and primary psychopathy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22074409/
Based on human injury and insurance claims, six dog breeds were designated as "vicious" (Akitas, Chows, Dobermans, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, and Wolf-mixes). This study was conducted to expand on previous research examining antisocial tendencies and personality styles of people choosing to own vicious breeds. Seven hundred and fifty-four college students completed a questionnaire assessing type of dog owned, criminal thinking, callousness, personality, alcohol usage, and deviant lifestyle behaviors. Vicious dog owners reported significantly higher criminal thinking, entitlement, sentimentality, and superoptimism tendencies. Vicious dog owners were arrested, engaged in physical fights, and used marijuana significantly more than other dog owners.
The study results are somewhat terrifying...especially because I'd really like to own a Doberman or Rottweiler!
Are you worried about letting the side down? Just do some crimes! They’re easy and fun!
The Mysterious Lex exits as mysteriously as he came....
My chief complaint about the previous episode was just that I’m not very interested in dogs. I don’t want another dog episode!
A few minutes in. I want to reassure Katie that I don't care about dogs and am no more likely to cancel my premium subscription than I was before.
A few minutes in. I want to reassure Katie that I don't care about dogs and am no more likely to cancel my premium subscription than I was before.
That is one freeeeaaaky AI picture
First of all, that picture is mildly terrifying, and I think that dog talks in a human voice and a dog voice at the same time. Secondly, I’m so sorry you had to put up with all that shit, Katie! I thought you were reasonable, and it was fair to look at the stats and where they came from and how accurate they were. The British Press definitely like to take shock stories and exaggerate and run with them for publicity and claim they are doing it for the greater good, rather than their own sales. As for people dumping dogs, that’s just sad. It reminds me of how in WWII, people in Britain dumped dachshunds because the papers published political cartoons with the UK represented as a brave British Bulldog, and Germany as a sneery little dachshund and I guess they thought their dogs were Nazis now? (My research on this point is “All Creatures Great and Small” by James Herriot. Can’t remember which one!)
To address the most pressing concern: "Derbyshire" is usually pronounced DAR-bi-shuh round these parts...
Do you also say it that way for hats and horse races or just the place name? (Darby instead of derby)
Now I my immature ass want to see an Australian wearing a derby hat at a horse race throwing shrimp on a grill... "Got my darby here at the darby as I throw my shrimp on the barbie."
Yes, always "DAR-bi" for British English usage in my book, though I would probably try and remember to say DER-bi if I was referring to an American proper name.
Re: the beginning of the show, a comment and a question: As a New Yorker (albeit one who has the good sense to live in Queens, where of course none of that sort of leaking-window shit ever happens to anyone at any time), the past week/5 years of biblical rainstorms we’ve had has confirmed what I already knew: I do NOT have the right psychology to live in the Pacific Northwest. I said as much to my girlfriend probably 10 different times over the course of the eternal downpour—she really loves that about me, that I make sure to keep her abreast of thoughts like these as they occur (and reoccur, and re-reoccur…) to me.
But really, serious question to PNW people: how the fuck do you put up with it? I’m not talking about leaky buildings or anything; I mean I reeeeally have to get outside every day and ride my bike or play tennis or otherwise get some exercise, and if I don’t, I get in the foulest mood—if I lived somewhere where it rains as often as it does in the PNW (or, say, England or Scotland), I think I’d hurl myself off a building within a month.
How on earth do you cope with it?! It’s such a spectacularly gorgeous area that I could totally see myself living there, but the long bouts of constant rain/drizzle/general gloom really make it a nonstarter. I get that a lot of people feel similarly about New York—there’s a lot to like, but the high rents/rats/vast size/chaotic intensity is just too much—but man oh man, that rain really did a number on me, and it was only for like a week or so!
In the PNW, it doesn't typically rain like you all had. You do get used to it and if you walk or run or do any other outside exercise, you get very knowledgeable about waterproof gear in a hurry.
I'm in upstate NY now and walking in rain or snow just doesn't bother me after 20 odd years in the PNW.
Ex-new Yorker now PNW-dweller here. Like Kelly says, the rain is different. Out on the east coast, it DUMPS rain (in fact, I miss the cool thunderstorms!) but here it’s more of a misty drizzle most of the time. Honestly I prefer the weather here; it’s very mild for the most part and the humid summers out east was awful to deal with.
Yeah, that’s why I said “rain/drizzle/general gloom”, because I know the rainfall is typically more drizzly or misty than downpours. But really it was more the sheer duration of the rain we just had that really bothered me, because most of the time it wasn’t raining THAT hard. But at no point was I able to get on a tennis court or comfortably ride my bike, so yeah, torturous for poor ol’ me.
Also, a weird quirk of New York City specifically is that thunderstorms aren’t very common, even compared to, say, 20-30 miles west in New Jersey. My understanding is it’s something to do with the maritime environment—New York Harbor, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Long Island Sound all kinda meld and interact here and it makes the atmosphere different maybe? I dunno, something like that.
I mean I know you used to live here so maybe it’s a comparison thing: my family and my partner’s family are in the South and Midwest respectively, and they get ***thunderstorms*** out there, man! At her family’s house in St. Louis, it’ll thunder so hard it makes the walls and windows rattle, and they don’t even bat an eye, lol.
Anyway, I’m so fucking long-winded but the last thing is, as I understand it, one of the reasons NYC floods like it did recently is those downpours used to be so uncommon here that the drainage system wasn’t built to handle that high a volume of rainfall runoff (and having impermeable surfaces everywhere doesn’t help either).
Yea I’m originally from nj and rainstorms were more epic for sure. Definitely had a few memorable ones in my time in the city though.
In the PNW I don’t let the rain stop me from going outside and into the woods — it’s definitely more of a mild inconvenience than something that would entirely derail my plans. I appreciate this.
I didn't look him up after the last show but my god Dave Wilson looks exactly like what I imagined he would look like, it's uncanny
Katieeee, I listened to the episode and 👀 wasn’t even interested in the topic enough to browse the comment section...
But then again I am one of those people who thinks we as a species care so much about our pets because of our insecure attachments, frustrated reproduction and resent apartment buildings that have dog runs but no playground equipment for human children.
I like dogs, but i am tired of dogs.
Okay, I’ll bite (heh). I listened to the first one. It set off my bullshit alarm, but I don’t really care about this topic so I didn’t bother to think much about it. This update confuses me, because it seems to just further split hairs that were already split last time.
As I interpreted the original piece and this update, they both seem very focused on 1) defining the distinction between American Bullies and other "bull & terrier" offshoots, 2) the UK ban of this novel breed, or sub-breed, or variety of a sub-breed, or whatever it is, and 3) the veracity of the data that Bullywatch has collected about this very specific lineage.
Most of this seems to hinge on whether there is a meaningful distinction between bull & terrier lineages. If there isn’t a meaningful distinction, then the data collected by Bullywatch can just be attributed largely to a more broadly defined lineage (this is aside from whether the data are legitimate or not – but based only on what I heard in the episode, it seems like the data are not great). Also, if there isn’t a meaningful distinction, then the UK ban doesn’t really matter anyway, because the American Bully would be banned under other lineages that are already banned in the UK. The only actually interesting question in this piece is “is there a meaningful distinction between American Bullies and other related lineages?”. This is the part that triggered my bullshit detector, because it seems to be foundational to most of the story, yet it’s not really interrogated that closely.
I'm a biologist. I don't study genetics, but I do have enough baseline knowledge in the field that if someone was trying to make this kind of distinction in a presentation or a manuscript, between varieties of a subspecies, I'd be rightly skeptical that any conclusion they're making off of the differences between these lineages is unfounded. All of this seemed really dubious to me, so I took ten minutes to check my skepticism.
I learned that despite so much ink spilled over Pitbulls, American Bullies, American Bully XLs, American Pitbull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and on and on, all these lineages share a common ancestor in a crossbreed between Old English Bulldogs and Old English Terriers (these two breeds are now extinct). The explicit purpose of this crossbreed was to create a superior "blood sport" breed by introducing the speed and agility of a terrier to the power and aggression of the bulldog. The Old English Bulldog itself was bred for blood sport, and its lineage can be traced to dogs bred for war. And this isn’t just a thing of the past; dog fighting is still happening and some “breeders” are still selecting for those associated traits.
It’s really clear to me that this lineage has been bred for hundreds of years if not longer by humans carefully selecting for traits that increase aggression and kill capacity. I really don’t know how long it takes to dilute those traits and whether It can be done in the number of generations that advocates of the breed say it can. My gut instinct is that it probably takes longer, but I really don’t know. Especially considering the fact that those who are trying to alter the breed aren’t really introducing much genetic diversity. If your main goal is to dilute the undesirable traits of aggression and kill capacity, why wouldn’t you cross the breed with other breeds known to be docile and less powerful? Why would you cross individuals within the breed that seem to display only docile behavior (but are still physically powerful)? How genetically linked is temperament anyway? And how often do these “dog fighting” lineages (which are still very much being actively maintained) get crossed into the “docile” lineages? I don’t know (or even care about) the answer to these questions, but I hope that the breeders and advocates do. Because if they don’t, it seems like the whole endeavor is just very silly.
Pretty shocked by the amount of pit bull hate. It is niave to just label breed as whole irrredeemably violent. I get some dogs are born aggressive towards people and/or dogs, and some of those dogs need to be euthanized because of that. And certain breeds will have disproportionate number of aggressive dogs in them. But the idea you can call a breed on the whole dangerous to point where they can't be owned by the public is not only dumb, it is immoral. And yes it is the same impulse that makes people racist. I can get behind arguments for responsible breeding and responsible ownership, but people should question the emotional pull for banning breeds like pits.
"And yes it is the same impulse that makes people racist."
Might want to take that up with the people who claim the breed was meant to be docile.
Right?
Katie seems to believe that the Bully XL was bred to be docile and she thinks that's documented.
If it's from the same impulse to call a breed aggressive then it must be true to call it docile.
Right?
I thought you did a good job, Katie. I'm sorry for you that you got so much crap about it, and that it bothered you so much.
Mad respect to you two. This episode says everything about your professional, old school journalism, open-mindedness and integrity.
“Derbyshire” is pronounced ‘Darbie - shuh’
Like Barbie but with a ‘d’ and the ‘shire’ part isn’t like Lord of the Rings. It’s shortened to a ‘shuh’ sound.
I'm telling you, nothing riles people up like dog breeds, gender stuff, and gun rights. Crikey.
My main issue with these episodes is that Katie comes across as activist-not-journalist, which is antithetical to the founding premise of the pod, as far as I've understood it, since it's inception (and yes I've been a paid subscriber since the beginning, I'm just working up the balls to buy some merch, maybe)
Really? I thought she sounded genuinely curious and willing to follow the evidence. What about it sounded like activism?
Did people really send Katie videos of pit bulls ripping people apart?
Never underestimate how shitty people can be on the internet. The episode was a public one, so any rando can listen to it.
Ah yes good point. Surely it was not one of the fine FOLX here
Just want to say thanks for this thoughtful deep-dive. I'm agnostic on most breed-specific bans - I love dogs, don't own a dog, and believe generally that owning a dog should be much more heavily regulated and difficult to do than it is in the United States. I think, knowing people who have been injured by dogs or owned dogs that turned out to have aggression issues, that that would solve more problems than just banning bullies. But these two episodes were the most level-headed version of the debate I've ever heard.
I was blown away by the reaction to the Bully XL episode, simply because people were really melting down and accusing Katie of making arguments she literally did not make at all. That said, I thought this and the previous episode were great and I feel that I learned a lot as always.
Sorry to hear you had so much heat from the American Bully XLs episode. It was thoroughly undeserved. Not sure you want to touch it again. But it's in the news on turf island today in a big way
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/murder-probe-sunderland-xl-bully-attack/
that photo made me realize my job will never be stolen by AI
Katie, your episode was well researched and well presented. I know a bit about the dog world and people are, ahem, passionate on either side of the fence. Sorry to hear how much hate you got and how it affected you. Been here since ep1 (nerd alert) and you guys keep me sane through the drudgery of daily chores. Great work and f them haters x
The only thing that could make me unsub, is Katie showing fear and weakness. Let's never do that again, from here on out we double down on everything and gaslight the audience into believing our position was always the correct one.
Pit Bulls and their defenders still suck
Katie's "Everybody just buy a Doodle" ending note was ironic to me, because her breed of choice is far from uncontroversial.
The creator of the Labradoodle says it's his "life's regret," and that the popularity of the cross-breed has led to health and behavioral problems in the breed as well as other copy-cat poodle mixes. That doesn't rise to the level of the baby-eating reputation that pits have, but I'm sure there is a cadre of dog breed enthusiasts who look down on the doodle too.
I've only known one doodle, and he was, in the parlance of dog culture, just the goodest boy. Jussayin.
I thought it was a great episode. More detail than I've heard any other media outlet get into on the whole big dog issue. I'm sorry it's been stressing you out Katie
This would all be so much easier to navigate if we just banned all dogs
Middle England brit here, Derbyshire is pronounced "d-are-bee-sh-uh”
Katie, kudos to you for your excellent reporting and due diligence in following up with this story and adding the finer points, including a few corrections.
I feel like the coverage of this controversy highlights why I couldn't live in Britain. Too easily excitable and stuffy. A lot to admire Europe for, but ultimately glad to be in America
It’s definitely a UK va US kind of issue. Laws are basically optional in most of the US in a way Europeans can’t really appreciate but that regularly demonstrates how futile more laws often are [here].
I'm more on team USA, mainly because I can't believe that people in the UK have police come to their homes over tweets.
I haven't thought of it that way. Could you develop what you mean by that ?
I can't speak for another poster but I think he's getting at this: in the US, we are generally reluctant to ban anything. We bend over backwards not to infringe on personal freedom or property rights.
Witness the debates over gun rights. We have a libertarian streak that may not be as prevalent in Europe. I can't imagine any US jurisdiction successfully enacting a breed ban, no matter how many attacks occur
America is big, in most places there aren’t very many cops, and as a result people’s first thought is not “is this illegal and will I get caught?” Speaking in broad strokes.
State jurisdictions also vary widely and so a nationwide campaign is much more difficult - you don’t just need to persuade a majority, you need to persuade a majority in each state.
It has pros and cons, I’m personally quite pro-pit-ban in theory, but it would be pointless to pursue a nationwide campaign for a ban even if you planned to go state by state, because there will always be holdouts. In the UK you can be one and done.
Most Brits are glad they don’t live in America, you know, what with the news stories we see about you.
I didn’t say it was a uniformly good thing! Just that it’s very different. But luckily I don’t think the UK is deporting people to the US by force so you should be okay.
Not surprised. Figure there's a reason you all don't leave your immaculate little island. It's a big scary world out there
One more dog episode and I will seriously consider canceling my subscription to BARpod.
You have a doggie in your profile picture and I can’t tell if you are joking.
But for what it’s worth, people are ruining dogs for me as me pets in general. Bites are a problem bc we have too many dogs. If people want to ban a dog - ban it or whatever looks like it. Who cares. People in England are scared of dogs that look like this, what is the problem. Ban it. It’s a type of dog. Who gives a f&ck. Get another type of dog that people don’t cower in fear over. I don’t care that the statistics are wrong bc I don’t care if dog breeds are unfairly discriminated against. Please.
I have a dog in my profile mostly because my dog is better looking than me. My comment is also mostly joking but I just want BARpod to cover the culture wars and internet idiocy. There are dog podcasts out there that are appropriate for this pit bull issue.
Let's move on. This is looks like a bike-Karen topic that can go on forever.
It's beyond absurd that people would unsubscribe over Katie's journalism on this topic. I would definitely categorize myself in the anti-Pitbull camp, and I support breed specific legislation. But I cannot take issue with anything Katie reported. Her work was thorough and professional and it's prompted me to reexamine some of my own biases on this topic. I've been a free listener for the last few months since being introduced to Barpod. Because of these two episodes, I've decided to actually pull the trigger on an annual subscription to show my support. I respect the work that both of you do and the quality of the product you produce.
Keep it up! I like hearing different things on this podcast, especially when you randomly dive deep into the obscure. Might not always agree 100% but that’s healthy and interesting
"football math"? At any rate, don't fret, K. The only thing wrong with this story is that it's boring.
We love you Katie ... in a platonic sense. Not crazy about dog lovers, but vegans are verboten. Yet I keep coming back to listen to this great podcast. Not going anywhere. Don't worry. You won't have to put Moose out to stud to pay the mortgage.
It isn't making generalizations that makes it racist. It is the impulse to over generalize and beyond to act on those over generalization and make ham fisted legislation that persecutes innocent members of that group based on your over generalization. You can make the case that group has in general certain characteristics without being racist. For instance if you want to make the claim that in general pits are more likely to show dog aggression or have historically been bred to be more aggressive for fighting purposes, I would accept that claim. But if you make the claim that every pit is aggressive and the breed to needs to be outlawed that is an immoral over generalization that unnecessarily persecutes non violent dogs. I could accept arguments for responsible breeding and a crackdown on breeding dogs for the purpose of aggression, especially fighting. Although even there I think there is a lot nuance. For instance, in police dogs and other protection dogs a certain level of aggression is desirable, but needs to be controllable. And most those dogs are malinois today. Dogs are a responsibility and people need think about and take serious the dogs that they own.
I made this comment once and then deleted it because I wasn't ready for the hate I'd receive. I don't know how to put this in a way that *won't* generate that anger. But, here goes.
I'm just wondering about the base rate issue here. In the heterodox spaces we talk about how people are disproportionately upset about police killings of unarmed black men. As far as I can tell there are maybe a few dozen a year? Which is about the same as the number of people killed by dogs. Of course, there's also injuries, other animals harmed, etc. And any death is horrible, particularly this manner (both dog mauling AND unjustified police shootings), and if we can reasonably prevent it would be great. As far as I can tell, there are about 90 million dogs in the USA. We do have to consider that people get a lot of benefit from their pets. Including many well-behaved Pitbull mixes. Just something to address/consider.
Hi Katie. In the UK, Derby is not pronounced the same way as in the USA. Derby is pronounced Dahrby. Like Roald Dahl. Or balmy or hardy. And so Derbyshire is also pronounced Dahrbyshire.
By the way, I have shared your analysis on the bullies and there is a lot of push back now anyway so keep up the good work. What we love about you is that you don't have any skin in the game and just want to find out the truth about things.
The correct pronunciation of “Derbyshire” is “DARbishur.” My source for this is a person from Derbyshire. But if you doubt it, just ask any English person.
"I wish I had a job where I could say 'bitch'" I wish Jesse found shitting on every other demographic as funny as he seems to with women, at least it wouldn't be so hypocritical
That dog on the cover photo looks like something from The Thing. I assume this is AI generated, which for some weird reason felt compelled to give the dog three noses and a pseudo-snout budding off of the original one.
Do Better Katie! JK... no more apology episodes. I still want the "Big Pit Bull" tee's but I'll unsubscribe when you become unfair, unthinking, or a passivist. More Jesse apology episodes! Not for professionalism, but for dates, parties , and general social awkwardness.
No True Scotsman Part 2
Ai will be the death of us all
What in the name of all that is holy is going on with the dog in the show notes face? And what is the deal with the headset face stuff on the person?
From past comments, it appears that Substack has started offering some sort of built-in AI image creator.
Derby and Derbyshire - just swap the e for an a and you get the correct local pronunciation. Dar-bee, not durr-bee. :)
Did the image for this get changed or am I just imagining or misremembering?
In the US, your risk of being bitten by a dog badly enough that you end up in the emergency room is a little more than 1 in 1,000 each year. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7603431/
That's pretty low, in my opinion. It's much harder to capture stats on dog aggression, and obviously watching your pet get mauled to death may be more traumatic than getting a bite that requires a couple of stitches.
I'm not a fan of pits (or cane corsos, or belgian malinois, or...) and I generally support breed bans at the local level when people vote for them. But I do think many people WAY overestimate the actual rate of attacks on humans within breeds prone to aggression. The great majority of these dogs never attack a person. Whether banning entire breeds to save a few children is reasonable requires a values judgment.
Hey, you leave the beautiful Belgian malinois out of this!
Is this the comment you're claiming was deleted by a mod?
Actually from my point of view the primary criticism *was* that she took Daves word, it may not have been *yours* but generally that was the criticism I saw most.
As for how aggressive they actually are, well that's what her explaining the stats was addressing. What more do you want?
Yeah, I criticised her taking the breeder’s word for it.
I am a cynical bitch (see what I did there) and just don’t believe that the people who love fighting dogs and wanted to breed them to be bigger and stronger (and crop their ears) did it to make them more docile.
It does not pass the sniff test for me. Why would you breed a fighting dog to be more able to win fights by making them bigger and stronger if you wanted them to be docile. If you’re breeding for docility because you want them to be companion dogs and not fighting dogs, who cares how hench they look? People attracted to hench looking fighting-breed dogs don’t want docility.
`People attracted to hench looking fighting-breed dogs don’t want docility.'
How can you make such a blanket statement?
My 95 lb. GSD is a big goof but walking around DC at night I (a woman) sure am glad he looks and sounds like a murderous hellhound (when the occasion demands).
Certainly this seems possible for people wanting tough looking pits.
If your dog looks and sounds like a ‘murderous hellhound’ then it’s not ‘docile’! And you don’t want it to be! You want it to intimidate people. The difference is that
GSD isn’t a fighting breed; its reputation is a highly trainable working dog. So presumably it only intimidates the people who you want to intimidate and you have control over the dog in those situations.
If not you are just another irresponsible dog owner who we are constantly told are the cause of the problem.
Pitts have a reputation for being unpredictably aggressive and difficult to control.
Someone who wants a huge, hench-looking fighting dog with that reputation does not want it to be docile.
She needs to at least address why he named the breed bully xl if it's supposed to be docile. It strains credulity for completely objective observers like me who don't live where these dogs exist and don't care about the story. Our dispassion I guess makes us see Katie's bias and it looks particularly ugly when it's about an issue that (in our minds) doesn't matter.
Both criticisms are related. She's incredulous about the stats and credulous about Dave, which in turn makes her not dig into whether the Bully XLs are currently docile or not ("bc the data sucks!")
It's all related.
There’s a Norm Macdonald bit about this
What are you talking about?
My *observation* was that people were upset she took Daves word for it.
As for your second point I can only reiterate *again* that she addresses that point with the statistics.
What is your point? What did she get wrong in this second episode? Why are you so agitated?
She does address it. I disagree with your interpretation of her argument and her response to the insane level of backlash.
Her main point is the evidence for the ban is shoddy and the effectiveness of a ban is questionable and she has backed that up really well. You should take a step back, you come across way too emotionally invested in this.
We're only talking about children being mauled to death. Lighten up!
Not me. I'm more upset that she did a shit job at vetting her source. Okay, she's a bad journalist, then why am I listening to this podcast? This ep is much bigger than bulldogs.
And no I'm not saying I'm thinking of unsubscribing because I'm offended, because I'm absolutely not, but I am saying Katie isn't a good journalist and if that's the draw of the show then I'm out.
Fortunately Katie is hilarious so I'll keep subscribing. But she's a bad journo.
Yeah dude she totally thinks that way
I have no dog in this fight (pun intended) but the content of that thread, which is narrowly about whether breeders intended to breed out aggression, bears no resemblance to your characterization of her thinking. Not only is it not literally her argument, it’s not similar in any way. She even addresses what you’re saying head on in one of the later tweets: https://x.com/kittypurrzog/status/1706649480580501890?s=20
Because the Bullywatch trash stats have almost certainly impacted legislation. Thats the whole point.
I read it. The stats are trash.
her dog was literally attacked by a pit bull and yet she’s still more capable of rational thought on this subject than you.