Are pitbull lovers denying evolution and science?

[psychedelicsoul]

You know, from examining the arguments on both sides, it seems pretty clear who's better at arguing?
Anti-pitbull people argue with science and statistics, while pro-pitbull people argue with catchy slogans.

The way I see it, to claim that a pitbull is only violent because of bad owners and that dogs will not be violent unless their environment makes them that way holds about as much water as creationism or calling homosexuality a choice.
It's a very obvious that dog behavior varies by breed. No matter how good a pet owner you are, there are some natural behaviors that will vary by the breed of dog you have.
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/triggers-what-prompts-pit-bull-to.html
It seems like most pitbull supports simply appeal to peoples emotions and use rhyming slogans rather than facts.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php
According to this site, pitbulls have evolved to be killing machines through selective breeding.

But I wanna know scientifically. Are pitbulls inherently violent animals that would kill with little to no provacation?

 

[Kittycat5]

It is not natural evolution though. While selective breeding and natural selection may or may not produce the same outcomes, selective breeding is a human endeavor. So yeah, I do not think it is out of line to say the owners cause the aggression of pitbulls.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

It is not natural evolution though. While selective breeding and natural selection may or may not produce the same outcomes, selective breeding is a human endeavor. So yeah, I do not think it is out of line to say the owners cause the aggression of pitbulls.

Even if humans made pitbulls that way, doesn't it still mean that pitbulls are born with those violent tendencies as a result of humans influencing evolution. I was just wondering if pitbulls are born with that tendency into them.

 

[alasdairm]

absolutely. here's a picture of of just one inherently violent animal that would kill with little or no provocation:

simply put, she's the gentlest creature i have ever met. what you're saying may be true of some. it's absolutely not true of all.

it's off-topic but i have to say it, psychedelicsoul. your posts are terribly sad. you seem to want to criticise, divide, accuse and look down on people and things. there seems to be very little compassion in your posts. you seem hurt and angry and, well, just an all round downer. maybe that's just who you are? and that's fine. but maybe you could find a little happiness by trying to honestly answer a few questions rather than asking so many...

alasdair

 

[Kittycat5]

Well every dog has natural "violence". They still have a predatory instinct even if not true predators. It is just our species that picks and chooses what traits we find desirable in our canine friends. And I would probably argue it is more enviornment and conditioning than actual selective breeding that causes pitbulls to be aggressive. Of course there is overlap but isolating a dog, beating it, and only allowing it to have contact with other dogs when fighting isnt really breeding for desired outcomes. Put a chihuahua in the same situation and it will become monstorous in behavior but not lethal.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

absolutely. here's a picture of of just one inherently violent animal that would kill with little or no provocation:

simply put, she's the gentlest creature i have ever met. what you're saying may be true of some. it's absolutely not true of all.

it's off-topic but i have to say it, psychedelicsoul. your posts are terribly sad. you seem to want to criticise, divide, accuse and look down on people and things. there seems to be very little compassion in your posts. you seem hurt and angry and, well, just an all round downer. maybe that's just who you are? and that's fine. but maybe you could find a little happiness by trying to honestly answer a few questions rather than asking so many...

alasdair

I just wanted to know whether places are right or wrong for pitbull control. A lot of appelete courts are banning the ownership of pitbulls. Some cases pets and even service animals have been seized from their owner. That of course sounds horrible. However, it's done in the name of public safety. I hate it when I hit a moral grey area. On one hand, some pitbulls have done pretty messed up stuff without any provocation. But on the other hand, do we want the state taking peoples pets, and probably euthanizing them.

 

[alasdairm]

it all pales in comparison with the misery that humans pile on fellow humans based on ignorance and hate.

alasdair

 

[psychedelicsoul]

it all pales in comparison with the misery that humans pile on fellow humans based on ignorance and hate.

alasdair

So you're saying a person is more violent and unpredictable than a pitbu- Okay, fine, you're right.

 

[Felonious Monk]

^I would actually agree that a person, on average, is more violent and unpredictable than a pitbull. Pitbulls have never organized to exterminate another breed of dog. I'm not even sure dogs are smart enough for tag-team fights.

it all pales in comparison with the misery that humans pile on fellow humans based on ignorance and hate.

Agreed. But I also 100% support bans on pitbulls, and laws forcing people to register their (potentially) violent dogs. Many areas have had issues with plagues of bad owners, and this type of legislation is needed to put backyard breeders out of business (who are the ones who REALLY breed the shitty genetics and create violent dogs).

 

[alasdairm]

^ so caring, gentle, non-violent animals should be tarred with the same brush as dangerous animals which are a product of abysmal treatment? you know, just in case?

what does a 100% ban on pitbulls look like? is the beautiful creature whose picture i posted to be euthanized?

alasdair

 

[Kittycat5]

And how will registration prevent people involved in illegal dog fighting and breeding from continuing as usual? Dont think they are running down to the courthouse to advertize their activity regardless of what laws are in place.

 

[Felonious Monk]

^ so caring, gentle, non-violent animals should be tarred with the same brush as dangerous animals which are a product of abysmal treatment? you know, just in case?

what does a 100% ban on pitbulls look like? is the beautiful creature whose picture i posted to be euthanized?

You mean caring, gentle, non-violent animals of breeds which are specifically selected as dangerous? Yes, I do support painting them with the same brush, as they didn't get that rep by accident.

A 100% ban on pitbulls looks like everybody spays and neuters their pets. Current dogs get an ID. No new dogs of those breeds can be registered. Unregistered dogs are illegal and must leave the county or be destroyed. Maintaining an illegal dog is a misdemeanor, punishable by large fines. Is that really so unreasonable?

And how will registration prevent people involved in illegal dog fighting and breeding from continuing as usual? Dont think they are running down to the courthouse to advertize their activity regardless of what laws are in place.

Stacking felonies. Aggravated sentencing guidelines. Same shit they do with every other class of crime. Your 1 thing just became 4 plus 10k in fines....

 

[alasdairm]

...while pro-pitbull people argue with catchy slogans.

let's look at some facts then?

the the american canine temperament testing society "focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat."

their testing includes behavior towards strangers, reaction to various auditory and visual stimuli, self-protective/aggressive behavior, and such.

pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%, passing 4th from the highest of 122 breeds - better than beagles (78.2%) and golden retrievers (83.2%) and significantly better than the average passing rate for all breeds (77%).

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

felonious monk, the organization to which i linked above concludes, through study as opposed to sensationalized reporting, that golden retrievers are potentially more dangerous than pit bulls. can i assume that you 100% support bans on golden retrievers too?

alasdair

 

[Felonious Monk]

Honestly, I'd rather support a 100% ban on people, then the dogs could be dogs without our interference (but those pits would really be killers).

I also don't see those statistics you're quoting, and they're different from the ones on this page: http://atts.org/breed-statistics/

I won't deny that American Pit Bull Terriers are higher on that list than Golden Retrievers (by 1% ), but I believe that pit bulls have had more genetic diversion recently than many other breeds. Whatever the cause, it doesn't matter, but where are all these bite victims coming from if not from badly bred dogs? What about if the obedient dogs are now the minority but are the only ones being tested by the ATTS?

Here's my personal story, I've been bitten by 2 pit bulls in my life. I wish I'd made sure I'd had those dogs put down, but I did not, and I regret that, those dogs might have gone on to hurt a child. Their owner was an unrepentant piece of shit and was maintaining those dogs in a county which had banned pit bull ownership for all the reasons I've mentioned. So maybe I've only met bad pit bulls and shitty owners in my life, I'm not denying that might be the case, but my personal experience tells me that modern pit bulls are not dogs that most Americans deserve to own (despite my historical KNOWLEDGE which says that pit bulls used to be amazing babysitters for infants around the turn of the century).

(and since you seem to own a pit alasdairm, I'll just go out and say that I'm sure your pit is sweet and you're an awesome dad and if we ever meet in sac I'd be happy to meet your dog, with certain breeds I am just uncomfortable unless I'm comfortable that the owner is capable)

 

[Kittycat5]

I too have been bitten by a pitbull. Twice actually, same dog. Also saw him bite a different person. But it was because the owners decided to toughen him up after they were robbed. They werent into dog fighting or breeding, just stupid and thought their dog didnt protect their home. But I never wanted him put down. I maybe wish he was in a better home, but this goes back to how I feel these dogs are trained, not some inherent flaw in the breed. I dont know where we would draw the line if we start banning breeds. Rotweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepards can injure someone as easily as a pitbull. I dont think we can legislate or regulate this issue.

 

[neversickanymore]

But I wanna know scientifically. Are pitbulls inherently violent animals that would kill with little to no provocation?

No, they are demonized and feared unjustly.

 

[GenericMind]

They don't have to be inherently violent to still be the most dangerous dog breed to own. And they are.

 

[swilow]

I dont know where we would draw the line if we start banning breeds. Rotweilers, Dobermans, and German Shepards can injure someone as easily as a pitbull. I dont think we can legislate or regulate this issue.

I agree that banning breeds is not useful, but I do think it is important to acknowledge the attributes of specific breeds. None of the three you have mentioned were specifically bred to fight, whereas pit bulls have. Regulations governing ownership of dogs should be developed with breed-specificity. I think pit bulls, bred for hundreds of years to fight, need to be approached differently to farm or ratting dogs. All dogs need to be treated with respect as potential predators, but human selection has selected gentler animals, with less agression and fear of human, to live amongst us; the majority of domestic dogs are docile in comparison to wolves or even feral dogs, and this is evidenced by the fact that most domestic dogs live peaceably with humans.

I've known a few pit bulls/pit bull-type dogs. They've all been markedly gentle when treated reasonably. But it would be wrong to underestimate their potential. I don't think they are neccesarily bred to be more aggressive or attack with less provocation. A fighting dog doesn't require more aggression or rage; just physical attributes that make them fight better, just like a human boxer who goes berserk in the ring is likely to lose against a calmer, more thoughtful opponent. Pit bulls can conceal their impending attack, so they appear to be attacking unprovoked. When they attack, it is almost always massive and catastrophic; they have been bred to attack with extreme intensity, hence a pit bull attack usually comprises many tens of injury sites, with multiple puncture wounds. Pit bulls were bred to have extremely powerful jaws, so they can bite into deep muscle and artery and disable their opponent. They also allegedly have the ability to lock their jaws, or at least, they do not give up lightly. I've seen a (disturbing) clip of a tranquilised pit bull, hanging onto a rope with as much force unconscious as conscious. Owners need awareness of these capacities. Similar to how stupid people should not have guns (ie. 99% of us :D), ignorant owners should not have pit bulls. Banning the breed is cruel and weak and the easy way out. Rather, we should live with the consequences of our decisions and treat our creations with the respect they deserve. They did not ask to be created. We now owe them guardianship, not prohibition or slaughter. I think that pit bulls might benefit from owner education and registration, plus I think we should be wary about further refining the breed. Let us take responsibility instead of effectively punishing innocent animals.

I owned a rottweiler for 7 years before he took the next road last year. He was a large, powerful male, with unusually long fur and long tail. He was a great big wimp who was scared of things like didjeridoo's and certain fabrics. He had a massive warning bark, but actually wagged himself into a dizzying stupor when he saw people he knew. He'd wet himself with joy when he was younger. He was totally submissive to most humans, and most animals, but I certainly saw some things in his behaviour that made me curious. He would act very differently when confronted with a small dog, which he would try and pin under his paws. He would obey me both fully and rapidly if needed though.

I also saw him act quite strangely around specific men, mainly drunk or angry men. He would act very sheepish and frightened, and "offer" his neck/throat/belly to them but act aggressive if they sought contact, or he would growl and back away even if they were completely disregarding him. As a male, he was never bothered by me, but I was always gentle and decisive in my treatment of him. He didn't like it if I got angry or excited though. He was a very large animal and mainly non-aggressive, but he needed to be appreciated for the impact his aggression could potentially have, and dealt with accordingly. You would 'control' his behaviour in a different way then you would a smaller dog breed. I wouldn't let him near children, given his attitude to smaller animals. His name was Henry, and I loved him so much

 

[Kittycat5]

I know you said it has been a year since Henry passed, willow, but I still will offer my condolences. I have never personally owned a Rottweiler, but my best friend since grade school did and we were roomates in college, so I effectively lived with his pup as well (I refer to all dogs as pups sometimes ). While he was not so outwardly as submissive as yours, he would never hurt a soul unless really provoked ( we used to call him dummy, lovingly of course, as it seemed he sometime was so unaware of his surroundings and would just give you that huh? look only a dog can do).

But you mentioned regulations based on breed. What exactly do you mean by this? I know already, many housing communities and landlords will not allow certain breeds. But they are private enterprises, and while I disagree with them, there is not much that can be done in these cases. I am naive in regards to either local or state or federal laws that may attempt to do similar things, but cannot see how this is really worth the expenditure to pass such regulations nor how they could even be properly enforced.

And I think you make a pretty compelling arguement that the breed of dog does not matter, rather its upbringing.

Whenever I hear about a dog being put down because it non-lethally (and often times not even remotely severely) attacked someone, I just shake my head. Court cases are so skewed in favor of the one attacked and evidence that would be thrown out in any other case, normally gets heard in these situations. Any dog can slip back into its instinctive mode for reasons we can never understand. But demonizing whole breeds is unjust in my mind.

My little one is sending you and Henry some love. But be careful, she is a beast.