Today's Huffington Post has an interesting look at the most popular US dogs by state with an article by Vetstreet's Kristen Seymore -including a pretty great info-graphic with data by state.
According to their numbers, the American Pit Bull Terrier was among the 3 most popular US breeds in 28 states - -ranking #1 in Rhode Island. Labrador Retrievers and Chihuahuas are the other breeds most likely to be in the top 3 with Labs being #1 in 42 states.
I confess that I don't know exactly where the information for this study comes from -- but it certainly seems to have more credible data than other reports that only include American Kennel Club numbers (AKC licensed dogs make up only a small fraction of US dogs) or licensed dogs (which make up also a non-representative sample) -- at least based on the experience of pretty much anyone who has been to a park, taken a walk in a neighborhood, or set foot in a shelter.
It's interesting to see the popularity of the American Pit Bull Terrier as one of the most popular dogs in the country and that, in spite of the created reputation, a very large number of people choose to own them. Maybe that reputation isn't so deserved after all? And if pit bulls were genetically bred to kill or whatever nonsense haters try to say, it certainly doesn't make sense that there are so few major attacks given the large numbers of these dogs. It is also interesting to think of cities who do consider legislation targeting the dogs are overwhelmed by the resistance they get by the many owners in their communities. There is strength in numbers.
Thanks to the Huffington Post and Vetstreet for the story. If anyone knows how the data is gathered, I'm curious.
I emailed the reporter to ask how they got the data. It's from 950,000 vet records to which Vetstreet has access. Issues with breed ID aside, 950,000 dogs represents less than 2% of the total canine population of 78+ million living in the USA as of 2011. So while it's nice to see that American Pit Bull Terriers (which they consider to be the same breed as American Staffordshire Terriers) are well represented here, I'm not confident in these numbers at all. Plus, they only looked at people who take their pets to vet offices, which as we know does not include a substantial portion of pet owners. It's not that I don't want to see "strength in numbers" when it comes to pit bull ownership (however we're defining "pit bull"), but if we're going to cry foul on "dog bite statistics" studies that use flawed or incomplete data, then we can't have it both ways and use these figures either.
Posted by: Kim Wolf | March 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Despite having taken up their cause, I actually don't have a huge affinity for the pit bull dog "breed" amongst other dog breeds. I prefer shepherding breeds for my own pets. What compels me to write about them is my love of dogs in general, and their sheer numbers. I feel like if I'm going to be any kind of self-respecting dog advocate, then I need to defend all dogs, and pit bulls make up a disproportionate portion of dogs in general, and shelter/rescue dogs in particular.
From my perspective, if you care about dogs, you HAVE to care about pit bulls.
Posted by: Central Ohio Dog Blog | March 28, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Kim, that's interesting. I actually think that 2% is a pretty huge sample size, but I'd have to have a refresher in statistics to see whether it could be considered representative, all other things being equal.
I also think that if it's skewed towards more representation of responsibly-owned (vetted) dogs, that if anything, pit bulls may be underrepresented in this sample. I base this only on the widely-asserted notion that pit bulls, on average, have less-attentive/responsible owners than other breeds.
Posted by: Central Ohio Dog Blog | March 28, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Kim, as with what Central Ohio posted, I don't expect anyone to have a complete inventory list of the breed of every owned dog in the country -- but what the number has to represent is a) a representative sample size and b) a representative sample.
So other statistical information on dog breed popularity based on, say, AKC numbers, would not be a statistically representative sample because AKC dogs are not representative of the dog population as a whole (nor do they even classify APBTs).
Meanwhile, things like dog bite data that is out there is based almost entirely upon media reports. Well, we can find examples everywhere of the media over-reporting dog bite information based on the type of dog involved -- and thus, the data is not only a small snapshot, but also statistically a non-representative sample.
I agree with CODB that if anything the data sounds like it would be skewed toward vetted dogs, vs non vetted, and thus, the assumption that APBTs being under-represented would likely be somewhat valid.
Posted by: Brent | March 28, 2012 at 01:59 PM
My question is: does "American Pit Bull Terrier" include dogs like mine that are shelter mixes thought to be pit bulls, i.e., do the statistics count my pit-pointer as a pit bull or a pointer or both?
Thank you CODB for realizing that all dogs need advocates. On the flip side, from what I've seen with herding breeds in my dogs' agility classes, I'll stick to the pit bull types. Those herders are challenging to say the least! They wear me out just watching their energy.
Posted by: Jennifer Brighton | March 28, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Jennifer -- I'm going to try to get some clarification on how these were classified.
Posted by: Brent | March 28, 2012 at 04:15 PM
This makes plenty of sense. It's been obvious for years that there are a lot more pits and pit mixes than anyone knew, but everyone was going off the AKC records... but they don't recognize pits as a breed, only the AmStaffs. Once the actual numbers are in, divided into the actual incidents of aggression, then that blows the whole "vicious" argument out the door. There needs to be a balanced conversation out there regarding actual incidents, and what it means to be a responsible pet owner. But, the hysteria has outpaced the reality, and it is going to take many years to change the damage that has been done to these dogs.
Posted by: A Facebook User | March 28, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Vet records don't mean Jack.
Now I understand why the APBT is not number one on the list, since according to one of the two registries for the purebreds in a private communication from 2006, they were registering 50% more American Pit Bull terriers than Labrador retrievers, the next most popular breed in the US. Actual numbers were roughly 95,000 Labs vs 130,000 APBTs annually.
APBTs are registered by the ADBA and the UKC. AmStaffs are registered by AKC and are way down in popularity, around number 60. They used to cross-register but don't anymore from the AKC side, not sure about the APBT registries, ie, if they register AKC AmStaffs. That breed parted ways with the APBT in the 1930s.
Vets just record what the owner tells them. They won't be verifying purebred status. People often believe they own a breed when they have a mongrel, or are told a dog is a such-and-such when they adopt the dog from a shelter/rescue.
So, while it is likely fair to say that "pit bulls" in the generic sense are extremely popular, expecially when we include lookalike breeds, unless they got the info from actual registries, it doesn't mean much when you are talking about an actual breed of dog.
Posted by: Selma | April 10, 2012 at 08:41 AM
being from Rhode Island myself I can say I know of a few people who own pitbulls.As to where they found out Rhode Island is number 1 I have no Idea.
http://www.empowernetwork.com/stevepost/blog/a-career-training-dogs/
Posted by: steve | May 23, 2012 at 03:59 PM
The statistics here don't surprise me in the least bit. Pitt's truly are amazing dogs that have been given a bad name because of their terrible owners. People just need to give them a chance so that they can see that Pitt's are a great family dog.
http://ironkingkennels.com
Posted by: jstrong196 | November 06, 2014 at 03:03 PM
yespit bulls are ok
Posted by: steve | May 09, 2017 at 08:31 AM