How popular are pit bulls?

 

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, takes issue with my previous post, in which I wrote: "Remember that only a generation or two ago, pit bulls were renowned as 'America's family dog.'"

He promptly e-mails me, saying:

This is a total fiction. There isn't a shred of historical evidence that pit bulls ever amounted to more than 1% of the total U.S. dog population until under 15 years ago, or that they were ever commonly kept as family pets (or indeed by anyone except dogfighters) until then.

Merritt is, in fact, a pit bull himself, so I've learned never to argue a case with him, even if I think I'm right (which I don't in this case). In a subsequent e-mail, he attaches a whole article from his newspaper:

How popular were pit bulls once upon a time?
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2006:

While few doubt that pit bull terriers have long been bred as fighting dogs, most discussion of pit bull traits or regulation meets claims such as that "The American pit bull terrier and its cousins had a well-deserved reputation as a loyal and trustworthy family pet in the early years of this century," (from canismajor.com), and that "By World War I the American pit bull terrier had became a well loved and desired dog," (from americanpitbullregistry.com).

Newspaper Archive.com now provides a quick way to check the record, via 28.9 million pages of text-searchable microfilmed newspapers from the 18th century to today. This includes the classified dogs-for-sale ads.

ANIMAL PEOPLE recently ran searches on 34 dog breeds and breed types for the years 1900-1950, limiting each search to U.S. newspapers only, and adding the word "dog" to each search to avoid pulling up entries for "husky" football players, St. Bernard the Roman Catholic monk, boxers and pugs who were human prizefighters, etc.

Two breeds hit the NewspaperArchive search engine ceiling of 314,027 mentions, and are asterisked accordingly in the table at right. Huskies in the second quarter of the 20th century were at a peak of popularity, after their heroics in delivering diphtheria serum to Nome over the Iditarod Trail in 1927. St. Bernards appear to have been very popular as well.

The exercise was skewed toward finding more pit bulls rather than fewer, since multiple searches were run to try to find pit bulls under a variety of different names; since searches were not run on every recognized dog breed; since not all mentions of huskies and St. Bernards were returned; and since several always rare breeds such as Basenjis were included in the sample, to establish a lower-end benchmark for comparison with the most popular breeds and breed types.

The sum of pit bull terriers, Staffordshires, and American bulldogs came to 34,770: 1% of the sampling of nearly 3.5 million breed-specific mentions of dogs.

Breed             Mentions

Husky            314,027
St. Bernard        314,027
Setter            299,801
Collie            281,258
Poodle            264,301
Boxer            261,086
Spaniel (all)        232,107
Greyhound        209,687
Beagle            204,799
German shepherd     187,843
Retrievers         127,768
Pug            82,374
Dachshund        75,584
Basset hound        63,925
Newfoundland        62,438
Doberman         61,685
Pomeranian         55,469
Whippet         47,252
Pekingese         46,580
Great Dane         46,108
Dalmatian         38,498
Afghan hound         19,956
Jack Russell         19,711
Akita             15,925
Pit bull             19,573
Staffordshire         15,168
American bulldog     29
Mastiff         16,427
English bulldog         11,597
Corgi             13,548
Coonhound         5,819
Basenji         4,896
Malamute         1,050
Rottweiler         672

TOTAL:             3,420,988

Comments

 

EmilyS said:

Merrit Clifton is uninformed.  I invite him to spend some time searching ebay for antique photos of pit bulls.  There are MANY examples of pit bulls as obvious family pets.  I dare him to say this method is unscientific.. it's actually better than the method he uses to compile "statistics" trying to prove his point that pit bulls are dangerous.   The attempt to calculate percentages is ludicrous.

You might be interested in reading this analysis here:

dogbitesinformationandstatistics.blogspot.com/.../wheres-clifton-report.html  (and check her links too)

You were about right:  a "generation or two" is about 40 years.  Maybe you should have said 3 or 4 to take you back to the 1920's and 1930's, the time of Petey and Our Gang.  Clearly the pit bull WAS a trusted family pet, however popular in numbers it was.   And its use as a symbol of American courage during WWI in the famous "I'm neutral but not afraid of any of them" posters also suggests how loved the breed was. Ironically, at a time when dogfighting was socially acceptable, more or less.  Pit bull people believe that the breed's popularity declined after WWII, until the anti-pit bull fighting hysteria ginned up by HSUS ATTRACTED people (of the sort that are attracted to "bad dogs") and its popularity increased.

But Merritt Clifton's life work is to demonize pit bulls, so he's hardly someone you want to take seriously on any aspect of the subject.

Sorry, though:  the RCA dog Nipper is not a pit bull!

January 28, 2008 8:45 PM
 

EmilyS said:

oh p.s.

there is NO relationship between the mention of a breed in a newspaper and its ownership.  The OWNERSHIP of a particular breed is what's at issue, not its "popularity" as demonstrated by a newspaper story.

For example:  at the time of the heroic Alaskan huskies and their "popularity", it's a safe bet that virtually NO ONE in the lower 48 owned these dogs.. as is true today.  These dogs are not the same as the Siberian huskies owned as pets.

The Alaskan husky had ZERO popularity as a pet, and one million references to their heroism does not change that fact.

January 28, 2008 8:56 PM
 

jbsibley said:

Indeed, if one were to attempt to gather facts about pit bulls from news stories that mentioned them in the last 10 years, one would end up with a woefully inaccurate view...

January 29, 2008 1:55 AM
 

KBC said:

Pit Bulls were a popular family dog in the 1930's.  When I first got my  2 Pit Bulls 20 years ago, my dad told me that he had had the same type of dog when he was growing up in the 30's.  He just didn't know what the breed name was.  He told me that all of his friends had the same kind of dog.

January 30, 2008 1:04 PM
 

nkb49 said:

I still don't understand why BF capitulates to M Clifton's egotistical and unfounded opinions just because he can create a table of "statistics." He obviously is as biased as someone can be. The NAACP would not take the word of a confirmed racist so why should an animal protection society take the word of a confirmed breedist? With all the fear and hatred pitbulls generate in the uninformed public they don't need someone who pretends to be an advocate being taken seriously by the organization they are depending on. Grow up BF and face this phoney down.

February 1, 2008 9:02 PM
 

SGMac said:

I suggest people take a look at this blog entry

lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/.../nitwit.html

for a review of Merritt Clifton`s "study".

Another word comes to mind but I won`t use it here, due to your guidelines.

It`s almost time to dismiss him,don`t you think?

No reputable person or organization takes him seriously.

February 3, 2008 2:44 PM
 

nkb49 said:

SGMac. THANK YOU -- M Clifton is a danger to dogs and society. it is sad that the good folks who guide Best Friends continue to promote his ignorant and baseless claims when folks like you can find those wonderful mentions of this sweet and gentle dog in our history. Anyone who has not seen Clifton's "publication" should ask for a copy. It is the epitome of yellow journalism, not to mention almost unreadable and totally ugly.

February 4, 2008 8:39 PM
 

SGMac said:

Here are  2 more links on that particular blog that look at Clifton`s  "statistics" for lack of a better word.

Part 1

lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/.../dangerous-breeds-dog-bite-statistics.html

and Part 2

lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/.../pit-bulls-dog-bite-statistics-and.html

Here is another blog that takes a look at Clifton`s "study"

btoellner.typepad.com/.../data-vs-informa.html

February 5, 2008 2:43 AM
 

nkb49 said:

I attended a No More HOmeless Pets conference sponsored by BF in 2004. It was excellent except for one workshop which was "facilitated" by someone I had never heard of before. In 2004 i had spent over 25 years in animal welfare and was happily ignorant of the existence of m clifton or his rag publication. The workshop was supposed to be about the use of statistics in creating a world where pets would not go homeless (excluding pet pit bulls i guess). clifton spent the entire time interviewing an asian participant who had witnessed a tiger attack in his village. it was disgusting and i left early. upon reflection i  think m clifton is a sociopath obsessed with animal attacks. it wouldn't surprise me if he is actually a wolfman who kills and eats his friends during a full moon.

February 7, 2008 9:02 PM
 

SGMac said:

Well I hope BF has had a look at the links provided.

I`m sure they`re smart people.

Hopefully he won`t be giving any more workshops.

You`re known by the company you keep.

I hope he doesn`t undo their good work.

February 8, 2008 12:12 AM
 

Pit Bulls » Blog Archive » How popular are pit bulls? said:

Pingback from  Pit Bulls  » Blog Archive   » How popular are pit bulls?

March 15, 2008 10:21 AM

About Michael Mountain

Michael Mountain is the President and one of the founders of Best Friends. He’s also editor of Best Friends magazine and the principal voice of Best Friends to our members – articulating the basic Best Friends message that kindness to animals builds a better world for all of us. At home, Michael lives with a motley collection of otherwise “unadoptable” dogs and cats – like Pudgie, an old Sheltie who had lived for seven years on the end of a chain and was de-barked when he annoyed the neighbors. He enjoys hiking the back woods of Angel Canyon (the home of Best Friends) and the local national parks of the Southwest.