Is it fair to have pit bulls around other people?

[Anguille]

It does not depend on the dog at all. It depends on how the dog was raised or trained. Pit Bulls are sweet dogs unless raised wrong. They wouldn't hurt a fly. There are exceptions. For example if you have a pit on a chain it is advisable to not let people approach it suddenly. The dog knows it is stuck and may react in a defensive manner if approached quickly or unexpectedly while on a chain.

What you feed the pit and how you treat it all help determine how it acts. Which is true of most any dog.

Which in the end means it depends on the dog - the individual dog - more than the breed.

Chaining dogs is a good receipe for a dog bite.

When you have no fence you have no choice. Stupid people need to learn not to run up to dogs on chains.

It seems to me that a dog behind a fence is about almost as likely to be territorial or feel cornered as a dog on a chain or a leash. Dogs do have to be contained though. I think the major problem is dogs that are always chained or kept in an enclosed space and never taken out for exercise. Dogs are animals which naturally roam and explore. They need to be given regular exercise, mentally and physically.

 

[Anguille]

It does not depend on the dog at all. It depends on how the dog was raised or trained. Pit Bulls are sweet dogs unless raised wrong. They wouldn't hurt a fly. There are exceptions. For example if you have a pit on a chain it is advisable to not let people approach it suddenly. The dog knows it is stuck and may react in a defensive manner if approached quickly or unexpectedly while on a chain.

What you feed the pit and how you treat it all help determine how it acts. Which is true of most any dog.

Which in the end means it depends on the dog - the individual dog - more than the breed.

Chaining dogs is a good receipe for a dog bite.

The difference between dog breeds is not much more than that between humans of different races. Dogs are all one species just as humans are all humans.

 

[Anguille]

It does not depend on the dog at all. It depends on how the dog was raised or trained. Pit Bulls are sweet dogs unless raised wrong. They wouldn't hurt a fly. There are exceptions. For example if you have a pit on a chain it is advisable to not let people approach it suddenly. The dog knows it is stuck and may react in a defensive manner if approached quickly or unexpectedly while on a chain.

What you feed the pit and how you treat it all help determine how it acts. Which is true of most any dog.

That is also true of alligators.

I repeat: You're an idiot.

I think Ravi believes pit bull are an entirely different wild species, unrelated to domesticated dogs.

 

[Anguille]

They are the preferred breed for drug dealers and thugs. I would like to see a dog registry at the police station so they have a list of homes to watch.

Translation : Black people like them so lets take out our hatred on their dogs.

 

[Anguille]

I agree Sarge, but when raised by drug dealers and thugs, they are often mishandled and mistrained. They are used for protection and trained to attack. That's why I am serious about a dog registry. And I have a real problem with people on food stamps being able to buy food for their animals. Feed your friggin children first.

Food stamps can't be used to pay for dog food.

 

[Anguille]

Problem being, one doesn't know if a particular pit is sweet natured or not. And since they do have a reputation for killing...is it right to have them around other people?

They only have that reputation with dingbats like you. They haven't got it with veterinarians and other people in the scientific community. That's why the Center for Disease Control, medical and veterinary associations and SPAs who all rely on facts and not fear mongering like you do, have all come out against breed specific laws. They believe they do not address the problem of vicious dogs and may even exacerbate the problem because those types of laws lead people to believe they just have to choose the right breed to get a good tempered pet and they don't have to put any effort into giving it proper training and care.

If breed specific laws were a good idea we'd have tons of them, not just in areas where the local politicians felt the need to go on a witch hunt against a type of dog to stir up votes amongst the ignorant and avoid dealing with real issues.
You have no way of know if any dog of any breed or non breed is sweet-natured or not. So treat all dogs you don't know with the same caution and respect.

 

[Coyote]

It does not depend on the dog at all. It depends on how the dog was raised or trained. Pit Bulls are sweet dogs unless raised wrong. They wouldn't hurt a fly. There are exceptions. For example if you have a pit on a chain it is advisable to not let people approach it suddenly. The dog knows it is stuck and may react in a defensive manner if approached quickly or unexpectedly while on a chain.

What you feed the pit and how you treat it all help determine how it acts. Which is true of most any dog.

Which in the end means it depends on the dog - the individual dog - more than the breed.

Chaining dogs is a good receipe for a dog bite.

The difference between dog breeds is not much more than that between humans of different races. Dogs are all one species just as humans are all humans.

I understand what you are saying but I'm not so sure about that. Dogs have been bred and manipulated by humans for thousands of years. Physically you can see that in size, shape, hair coat, and tail carriage but it also exists in temperment with a far wider range then humans.

When we breed dogs for jobs we breed them to retain portions of their instincts and discard others. A good herding dog retains the instinct to stalk, fetch, control the movement of stock and work the stock to the handler - all portions of hunting behavior. Bird dogs and retrievers retain the instinct to pick up and carry things (but with a puppylike soft mouth rather than a killing hold), the instinct to hunt is cut short at the stalk and freeze portion or flushing out the prey to the human. None of those dogs are bred to kill the prey. Other hounds - coursing dogs - are. They retain almost the complete sequence with some bits missing - they are released when the prey is insight to run it down and kill it. Pitbulls were bred primarily to fight other dogs. They are terriers and that is common to most terriers - a high degree of prey drive and dog-on-dog aggression. But a lot of pits, for years have simply bred for family companions and been excellant. I think the rise of the drug trade, innercity gangs and their use of dogs to enhance their image has been fracturing the pitbull breed and creating some truely dangerous dogs because they are being bred and encouraged to be aggressive and to have a very high level of prey drive that is not properly channeled.

The problem with Pitbulls is complex because they aren't really a "breed" - more of type with a wide range. They should have excellent temperments - they were bred for years to fight other dogs but also to be good family members and aggression towards their handlers was not tolerated. But you have a different demographic getting "into" the pitbull and that is the drug lords, street thugs and anyone who wants to have the canine equivelent of a magnum in the publics eye. They've created and encourage an image that could be the demise of a wonderful breed of dog. You can see it in breeder webpages with emphasis on oversize, over muscled, dogs with violent names and violent imagery surrounding them (chains, hoops of fire, devil dog motiffs etc.). People that buy them want that imagery and are likely to encourage it.

What the pitbull needs, as a breed, is what the Doberman's got. Years ago Doberman's had the devil dog image and some very dodgy temperments to the point where the breed was really in danger. Their breed club took action, put together a set of ethics, enforced it and encouraged it and improved the temperment of their breed overall. There will always be trash breeders and trash owners, but at least the breed as a whole is no longer in trouble. I honestly think some sort of grouping together of pitbull owners and breeders is the best hope for this wonderful dog. Just saying they are wonderful dogs (which they are) is not enough because there clearly are some serious problems that can't be ignored in the way breeders promote them the "culture" likes to portray them. In today's society a pitbull has to be better than the average dog - if a pit does anything wrong, it's all over the media even though a child may have been attacked and killed by another breed that had little attention paid to it.

The sad thing is, the qualities that make pitbuls such wonderful dogs - the ability to withstand a lot of abuse and bounce back, retaining trust and a friendly temperment and their incredible athleticism make it easy for them to be abused and mistreated where other breeds would snap.

Anyway....off my soapbox

 

[Coyote]

I agree Sarge, but when raised by drug dealers and thugs, they are often mishandled and mistrained. They are used for protection and trained to attack. That's why I am serious about a dog registry. And I have a real problem with people on food stamps being able to buy food for their animals. Feed your friggin children first.

I don't. Sometimes an animal can be the only source of uncomplicated love that they have.

 

[Ravi]

Problem being, one doesn't know if a particular pit is sweet natured or not. And since they do have a reputation for killing...is it right to have them around other people?

They only have that reputation with dingbats like you. They haven't got it with veterinarians and other people in the scientific community. That's why the Center for Disease Control, medical and veterinary associations and SPAs who all rely on facts and not fear mongering like you do, have all come out against breed specific laws. They believe they do not address the problem of vicious dogs and may even exacerbate the problem because those types of laws lead people to believe they just have to choose the right breed to get a good tempered pet and they don't have to put any effort into giving it proper training and care.

If breed specific laws were a good idea we'd have tons of them, not just in areas where the local politicians felt the need to go on a witch hunt against a type of dog to stir up votes amongst the ignorant and avoid dealing with real issues.
You have no way of know if any dog of any breed or non breed is sweet-natured or not. So treat all dogs you don't know with the same caution and respect.

Not so. They have the reputation because they are aggressive and many of those that own them cannot control them. Plus that little troubling fact that they have more brute strength and determination to finish the kill than many other breeds.

 

[Anguille]

I understand what you are saying .................
Anyway....off my soapbox

Great post! You make a lot of good points.

I think though that you cannot breed viciousness into a dog. It's not an instinctual behavior like having a tendency for a soft mouth that can be bred into gun dogs.

This is were people who claim pit bulls are naturally vicious killers start to sound just like people who claim blacks have an inborn tendency to steal and Jews are wired to cheat people out of money.

It's weird how the branding of America has spilled over into how people see dogs nowadays. It all about the breed just as it's all about the brand of clothing you wear. People sem to think that because they buy a dog that has some sort of certificate saying it's purebred golden retriever that they know exactly what they are buying as if they bought a pair of designer jeans. They don't realize it's living creature and that it has much more in common with other members of it's species than it does with some standardised ideal of what the dog breeding industry wants you to think it is.
I'm pretty much across the board against most dog breeding because it has led to so much abuse of dogs for the sake of fashion or gambling or other things. Pit bulls are one off the breeds that has suffered less than say English bulldogs or teacup chihuahuas from deformaties due to over breeding. I agree with you that owners probably should forn association like the owners of German shepherds and Dobermans did when those breeds where considered public enemy #!. I think that education has acheived a degree of success already in correcting misconceptions about pit bulls because I see more and more people willing to adopt abandoned ones in my state. Still there is along way to go.

And seeing as how people are people, I think that once pit bulls pass from being the scapegoat another breed will probably get put in their place. Just like it seems many people have a need to scapegoat certain ethnic or religious groups .

 

[Anguille]

Problem being, one doesn't know if a particular pit is sweet natured or not. And since they do have a reputation for killing...is it right to have them around other people?

They only have that reputation with dingbats like you. They haven't got it with veterinarians and other people in the scientific community. That's why the Center for Disease Control, medical and veterinary associations and SPAs who all rely on facts and not fear mongering like you do, have all come out against breed specific laws. They believe they do not address the problem of vicious dogs and may even exacerbate the problem because those types of laws lead people to believe they just have to choose the right breed to get a good tempered pet and they don't have to put any effort into giving it proper training and care.

If breed specific laws were a good idea we'd have tons of them, not just in areas where the local politicians felt the need to go on a witch hunt against a type of dog to stir up votes amongst the ignorant and avoid dealing with real issues.
You have no way of know if any dog of any breed or non breed is sweet-natured or not. So treat all dogs you don't know with the same caution and respect.

Not so. They have the reputation because they are aggressive and many of those that own them cannot control them. Plus that little troubling fact that they have more brute strength and determination to finish the kill than many other breeds.

link?

 

[Coyote]

Not so. They have the reputation because they are aggressive and many of those that own them cannot control them. Plus that little troubling fact that they have more brute strength and determination to finish the kill than many other breeds.

They can have a fairly high prey drive and they can have a high degree of dog-to-dog aggression, but that is not much worse then a number of other breeds. If you're talking about aggression towards humans - there are breeds with a greater reputation for that but the media doesn't bother with them.

 

[Ravi]

Not so. They have the reputation because they are aggressive and many of those that own them cannot control them. Plus that little troubling fact that they have more brute strength and determination to finish the kill than many other breeds.

They can have a fairly high prey drive and they can have a high degree of dog-to-dog aggression, but that is not much worse then a number of other breeds. If you're talking about aggression towards humans - there are breeds with a greater reputation for that but the media doesn't bother with them.

That could be true...but perhaps they aren't bothered with because they are more uncommon.

Thanks for not bringing up Angie's usual silliness about attack tea cup dogs.

And Angie, you're insane if you think dogs can't be bred to be aggressive.

 

[Anguille]

Not so. They have the reputation because they are aggressive and many of those that own them cannot control them. Plus that little troubling fact that they have more brute strength and determination to finish the kill than many other breeds.

They can have a fairly high prey drive and they can have a high degree of dog-to-dog aggression, but that is not much worse then a number of other breeds. If you're talking about aggression towards humans - there are breeds with a greater reputation for that but the media doesn't bother with them.

That could be true...but perhaps they aren't bothered with because they are more uncommon.

Thanks for not bringing up Angie's usual silliness about attack tea cup dogs.

And Angie, you're insane if you think dogs can't be bred to be aggressive.

Pit bull breeders, the nasty kind, have not been very successful at breeding aggression into pit bulls because most of them are not aggressive.
Aggressive behavior is best produced by training to encourage it and by not neutering male dogs. A male dog not being neutered is a better indicator of it's chances for attacking another dog or a human than what breed it might be.
And by the way I said viciousness, not aggression. Dogs do, by nature have a certain amount of aggression. Just as humans do, but pit bulls do not carry a gene for mauling babies as you seem to think.
You don't sem to have a very good grasp on science or evolution, Ravi. It took thousands of years to domesticate dogs. It would take thousands more to create a breed of dog that was no longer domesticated and which preyed on humans. Pit bulls just haven't been around that long.

Coyote also made some good points about pit bulls not even being a real breed.

But go one ignoring what the experts I mentioned in my above post have said and keep maligning pit bulls. Muslims or pit bulls serve both the same purpose for you. Something to hate.

 

[Ravi]

It only takes a few generations to breed specific traits into dogs, since dog generations are short.

Also, I didn't realize that you were so old that you were around for the birth of domesticated dogs. People have been wondering for years how it happened, you could earn some good money describing the process.

 

[Anguille]

It only takes a few generations to breed specific traits into dogs, since dog generations are short.

Also, I didn't realize that you were so old that you were around for the birth of domesticated dogs. People have been wondering for years how it happened, you could earn some good money describing the process.

How about presenting some scientific evidence to backup your ravings?

Can you provide expert testimony in favor of breed specific laws?
Please back up your claims that if we eliminate pit bulls no one will ever be harmed by a dog again.

 

[Coyote]

I understand what you are saying .................
Anyway....off my soapbox

Great post! You make a lot of good points.

I think though that you cannot breed viciousness into a dog. It's not an instinctual behavior like having a tendency for a soft mouth that can be bred into gun dogs.

I'm not sure...temperments can be very tricky and seperating the genetic from the enironmental is difficult. I'll put forth some "food for thought" here....

Some breeds are bred specifically for a high degree of aggression towards strangers. These are breeds where they are inherently suspcicious of anything "out of the ordinary", they don't take many cues from the owner as to the acceptability of the stranger and remain highly suspicious. If you look at the genetic evolution of instincts and temperment and what is called "neotany" you'll see that is typical of very young pups in a certain period of development where they are very suspicous and react with fear at anything strange. Where-as pups normally grow of this - certain breeds are bred to retain this high degree of suspicion. Breeds like livestock guardian dogs for example - Anatolians, Great Pyranees etc. who bond with their flock whom they are raised with as puppies and regard strange canines or humans as threats or the Presa Canary dogs, a breed that is very suspicious and also very powerful and assertive. These breeds need intensive socialization that is on going and a knowledgeable owner if they are going to live in an area where they encounter a lot of people because they don't like strangers much and quite likely won't be entirely comfortable in certain situations. That's instinctual, it's bred into them and while aggression towards humans may not have been intentional it's the by-product of what those dogs were bred for in the same way as a soft mouth. I guess the problem is - what happens when genetic temperment intersects with environment and how the dog was reared.

If you at dogs bred for a guardian type temperment such as German Shepherds or Australian Shepherds you have breeds with a lot of "edge" to them. They are not as anti-social as the prior group but they are very atuned to any difference in their environment and, if not properly socialized will react. I am not sure whether the Presa fits here or with the above but it is a breed with a high degree of aggression bred into it for "protection" purposes. With any breed bred for that, you can get a time bomb if the dog is not socialized right. It is often difficult to tell if the "protection" is based on fear, confidence or a combination unwittingly encouraged by the clueless owner. That is a very dangerous mix.

Another aspect of temperment is how forgiving and flexable it is. Some breeds are much more forgiving of isolation, trauma and mistreatment and can emerged unscathed others are not. I've seen pitbulls on both ends of that. I've found many of the breeds in the herding group to be much less forgiving and more easily fucked up (such as Aussies and GSD's, which I am more familiar with).

Another thing that I think some Pitbulls have that works against them and can lead to bite incidents is that with their facial musculature and tight tight skin, they can be very difficult to read. If you cut off their ears in a fighting crop - communication is even more muted. Dogs like that don't always telegraph their intentions clearly the way other breeds can. In addition some breeds like Chows and Akitas are notorious for giving away very little of what they think before they act. So, if a kid (or adult) commits what in doggie lingo is a gross breach of manners and puts his arm over the dogs shoulders in a hug - a well socialized dog with a stable temperment would tolerate it, another dog might move way or growl and another might immediately bite as if the child were a rude dog. That can lead to screaming which in many dogs elicits prey behavior and mauling. It's a fine line.

So...while I think most of the time you aren't "breeding viciousness into the dog" you are breeding for a variety of traits that come together in a way that night all too easily produce a vicious dog - sometimes breed traits, sometimes individual quirks and sometimes both coming together with a bad environment and poor socialization.

This is were people who claim pit bulls are naturally vicious killers start to sound just like people who claim blacks have an inborn tendency to steal and Jews are wired to cheat people out of money.

I totally agree - it's very much dependent on the individual dog. Among the top breeds most likely to bite are Dachsunds and German Shepherds. Pits are pretty far down I think.

It's weird how the branding of America has spilled over into how people see dogs nowadays. It all about the breed just as it's all about the brand of clothing you wear. People sem to think that because they buy a dog that has some sort of certificate saying it's purebred golden retriever that they know exactly what they are buying as if they bought a pair of designer jeans. They don't realize it's living creature and that it has much more in common with other members of it's species than it does with some standardised ideal of what the dog breeding industry wants you to think it is.

That is a really interesting point! And so true! I work with Aussie Rescue (ARPH) - and more often then not I find what people want when they think they want an aussie is not a hard working dog with strong guardian and herding instincts but some sort of Golden Retriever in a blue merle suit. People get these puppies and then they don't know what to do when the dog exhibits the traits it was bred for.

I'm pretty much across the board against most dog breeding because it has led to so much abuse of dogs for the sake of fashion or gambling or other things. Pit bulls are one off the breeds that has suffered less than say English bulldogs or teacup chihuahuas from deformaties due to over breeding. I agree with you that owners probably should forn association like the owners of German shepherds and Dobermans did when those breeds where considered public enemy #!. I think that education has acheived a degree of success already in correcting misconceptions about pit bulls because I see more and more people willing to adopt abandoned ones in my state. Still there is along way to go.

And seeing as how people are people, I think that once pit bulls pass from being the scapegoat another breed will probably get put in their place. Just like it seems many people have a need to scapegoat certain ethnic or religious groups .

I couldn't agree more!!!!

 

[Coyote]

It only takes a few generations to breed specific traits into dogs, since dog generations are short.

That really depends on the traits and how purpposefully you are breeding for them. Also...strictly speaking your statement doesn't make much sense....

However long or short a generation is.....it has no effect on how many generations are needed.

Also, I didn't realize that you were so old that you were around for the birth of domesticated dogs. People have been wondering for years how it happened, you could earn some good money describing the process.

There are some pretty good theories on it, that make a lot of sense and seems to fit with existing physical evidence of changes in jaws, teeth, size and behavior - dog's co-evolved with human civilization as scavengers. In order to be a successfull scavenger and live close to human habitation, they would need a reduced flight/fight reaction which in turn encourages domestication and scavenging leads to less of a need for powerful teeth and a more fluid social system that includes humans. The Coppingers wrote an excellant book on it.

 

[Ravi]

It only takes a few generations to breed specific traits into dogs, since dog generations are short.

Also, I didn't realize that you were so old that you were around for the birth of domesticated dogs. People have been wondering for years how it happened, you could earn some good money describing the process.

How about presenting some scientific evidence to backup your ravings?

Can you provide expert testimony in favor of breed specific laws?
Please back up your claims that if we eliminate pit bulls no one will ever be harmed by a dog again.

You can read about breeding for aggressiveness here:

Genetics of aggression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can search around the web and discover no one knows how long it took to domesticate dogs. I doubt it took more than a few generations of breeding the wild dogs found with sunny dispositions to each other.

Here is a case where expert testimony was used:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/pitbullDenver.pdf

Here's an amusing one, but pretty good...from the president of PETA, a group I normally can't stand.

Controlling an animal as deadly as a weapon - SFGate

I've never claimed that if we eliminate pit bulls no one will ever be harmed by a dog again.

 

[Ravi]

It only takes a few generations to breed specific traits into dogs, since dog generations are short.

That really depends on the traits and how purpposefully you are breeding for them. Also...strictly speaking your statement doesn't make much sense....

However long or short a generation is.....it has no effect on how many generations are needed.

Also, I didn't realize that you were so old that you were around for the birth of domesticated dogs. People have been wondering for years how it happened, you could earn some good money describing the process.

There are some pretty good theories on it, that make a lot of sense and seems to fit with existing physical evidence of changes in jaws, teeth, size and behavior - dog's co-evolved with human civilization as scavengers. In order to be a successfull scavenger and live close to human habitation, they would need a reduced flight/fight reaction which in turn encourages domestication and scavenging leads to less of a need for powerful teeth and a more fluid social system that includes humans. The Coppingers wrote an excellant book on it.

No, of course not...I was strictly referring to time. You could also breed people to be aggressive, but it would take many, many more years than it would for dogs because our reproduction cycles don't kick in for at least 13 years after birth. In that time period you could have bred your thirteenth generation of a dog family.