Are pitbull lovers denying evolution and science?

[GolemGolem]

I've had 4 dogs as an adult, one pit bull, two long terrier lookin' mutts, and a border collie. All awesome, but the terrier's bark at everything and can get snippy with strangers (human and animal), and the boarder collie was over protective/possesive and came to us after biting a kid. Pit bull....none of that, friends with every thing other than rodents, puts up with most anything, nurses kittens, neighborhood loves her. Scared of thunder and fireworks, which can be a problem because when she's scared she cuddles in extra close and trembles and makes it hard to sleep...
Yeah, I was nervous when the wife got her heart set on Dolly a few years back and all I knew was the bullshit common knowledge, but there is no denying that she is the safest animal I care for, and I'm including the fish.
Thought I read Golden Retrievers send the most folks to the ER in the US?

 

[Codeine Demon]

Seriously you need to chill, I said my opinion, then someone presented me some actual evidence and I was more than willing to take a step back and accept it.

The reason these sort of debates go no where is because some people just blindly argue there point ignoring everyone else and all evidence present.

I'll say it again, I don't want to kill your dog, I don't personally give two shits about your dog I am never going to come into contact with it. I live in a place where they where and still are only bred for the purposes of fighting, and I'm sorry but the majority of the time that's the case. I'm sure your dog is lovely, but I'm against dogs being bred for that reason. The greater good and all that.

Oh and if you'd personally seen one of these half dead animals being dropped into a barrel of water and electrocuted to death, like I have btw, then you might reconsider keeping the breed around so you can have your house pet. There's a lot more to it than your dog. No yours isn't dangerous I'm sure, but the majority are bred to have horrible lives and die horrific deaths.

 

[GolemGolem]

Dolly is a rescue, she did have a shit upbringing, she was bred way too young. All of my dogs have been rescues and I don't care for dog breeding and hate dog fighting. So I think we're mostly on the same page Codeine Demon. I just think pit's bad reputation does more harm than good. Scares good responsible folks, and is attractive to assholes.

 

[neversickanymore]

"presented me some actual evidence"

Id like to see some actual evidence of the opinions listed below



"only bred for the purposes of fighting, and I'm sorry but the majority of the time that's the case."

Please try and back this up

"Oh and if you'd personally seen one of these half dead animals being dropped into a barrel of water and electrocuted to death, like I have btw, then you might reconsider keeping the breed around so you can have your house pet."

What does the cruel and sadistic treatment of Pitt bulls by dog fighters in your area have to do with loving owners of pitt bulls? Nothing. The sickness and evil lives in the humans of your culture that engadge in fighting these dogs and not naturaly pressent in the dogs themselfs


"but the majority are bred to have horrible lives and die horrific deaths."

Please try and back this claim up

 

[JM357]

I had the opportunity to work at a shelter where literally 3/4s or more of the dogs were abused or abandoned pit bulls. I had been challenged for dominance before, but had some training and was always able to handle those situations.

I would like to point out- pitbulls were NOT bred to be aggressive towards humans (if we were going to talk about science then dobermans (have also worked with them and most dobies are actually sweet dogs), rottwielers, great danes, etc.- all these breeds WERE bred at least in part to be protection/guard dogs and therefore were supposed to be suspicious of strangers) they were bred for "sporting" (which thankfully is now illegal and includes dog fighting, bull-baiting, etc.). There is a difference in dogs being aggressive towards other dogs and dogs being aggressive towards people. When dog fighting was allowed any dog that bit a referee was either put down or not allowed to breed. And the referees were pulling apart dogs that were severely injured which is the most dangerous time to be around an animal. Obviously this made it extremely important that the dogs were NOT naturally aggressive towards people.

Also, according to the animal control officer at the shelter pit bulls actually have a LOW bite rate but admittedly have a HIGH fatality rate. They are naturally friendly towards people but extremely powerful dogs with a high threshold for pain- so when they do go after someone they are more likely to cause serious damage, even though they are naturally pretty much people loving dogs.

Lastly, it would be impossible to define a pit bull legally- while most people say what is most people mean American Pitbull Terrier (AKC) or Staffordshire Terrier (British Kennel Club) really by saying just "pit bull" it means a mix of a bull type breed and a terrier type breed. Most "pit bulls" out there are not registered with the AKC or BKC so if you banned "pit bulls" it would probably only effect dog owners that bought pure bred show dogs. Most people that own "pit bulls" there would be no way to legally class those dogs as banned because they aren't real "purebreds" with papers. They are just "pit bull" type dogs, and how the hell do you really define that? What if one of the pit's grandparents or great grandparents was say a rottweiler (I've heard a lot of reports of people who want huge, powerful pits putting rottweilers in there at some point (pure bred pit bulls are actually more of a medium sized dog than a large dog))? now you no longer have a pit bull, you have a mix breed.

 

[JM357]

And if we banned pits, and say they actually did get rid of them the people that want an aggressive dog (and I will give some exception for like schutzhund's- you need to really know what you are doing to own a dog "trained for protection" (like for example the training police k-9s have) but they usually are not abused) would just take another breed and abuse it into being aggressive (I'm surprised that pits are even the most common breed this happens too- I would think like Cane Corsos or some of the other VERY large guard breeds would be used; and I'm not saying these breeds are inherently bad either but some would actually probably be easier to make aggressive than a pit bull).

And as someone said above I've actually heard that goldens send more people to the hospital than pits- I think this actually may be quite possible even though I think of goldens as an EXTREMELY friendly breed. They are large and very enthusiastic- I have known goldens who will charge people and bowl them over and start licking them- even though their intentions are not bad someone can get hurt by a large dog that is actually trying to be friendly. I'm not even joking about that.

 

[RedSox978]

I have a rottweiler/shepherd mix... Shes maybe 40lbs; otherwise, the runt. Pitbulls have been breeding to the will of vicious human minds for decades. Bulldogs don't get shit, the pitbull is a "great white" of dogs; when in reality, they are the most loyal and trustworthy dog breeds. For years they would fight each other (sardines, anchovy sauce to make em bite), those same dogs were the only dog not to bite humans. They, like all have amygdala response to stimuli. When used to fight an animal the fight response cannot be ignored. If a human were to wake the dog suddenly or startle the, they may nip. Like my sisters cockapoo did to me the other day. These are animals... Horses kill and injure a ton of people, but they're not calling for the House/Senate to pass laws against owning a damn thing. The reason is, why argue when science tells us the dog is non-aggressive and reacts to stimuli like you and I would. Humans are wayyy more prone to violence, confrontation. Dogs don't have pride and arrogance like us. We love violence. A ban of a domesticated pet, certainly a dog-subtype would never make it to the lobby. Maybe we should speak from experience and education, out of sheer genealogy brilliance "creates" an arian dog race of backyard pit bulls prone to violence without an understanding that they feed off of the emotional response you're emitting. Dogs can actually sense barometric pressure and fighting this breed... Its ugly. I know more girls with pitbulls than guys. It's false paranoia... what about shepard's labs bulldogs? Police and military don't use pit's because they don't fight with human targets. I think this is kinda weird you guys have such a bad outlook on the most popular species of dog, without anything to say but they have a reputation. Local laws prohibit breeding without licensed people who know what they're doing. You ever been in a battle? like snap, pop, ack-ack boom nothing able to cross your mind but I gotta get him... Dogs don't premeditate, a wolf had it's first fatal attack in the US ever only 2 years ago. People are the law-makers and people break em... what're you going to do? A hippo is almost a thousand times more aggressive and deadly should we create laws in congress that say since people generally are afraid of a breed of dog, we'll euthanize em. Save people a lot of....... companionship? Fish, birds, and squirrels are more aggressive toward human presence lol. Pit's were killed if human attack was unprovoked. That's not natural selection, evolution, but it's a part of the temperament of one of the most friendly animals you'll ever wanna eradicate.

 

[Kittycat5]

^^^ You make good points about them being bred to fight other dogs and not humans and their ability to sense fear or other subtle emotional changes. I am not so sure this isnt the reason why Pit Bulls are known for being aggressive and thus the bad image they get.

Both times the dog I mentioned earlier came after me, it was exactly the same. I walked in the the house where he lived and saw him not 100% settled. I looked at him, he looked at me, I flinched and he was on me. Perhaps because they are bred to fight other dogs, Pits are more in tune with the non-verbal cues and interpret benign ones from humans as a threat. I am totally speculating here but seems at least plausible. Add a pretty good bite strength and tenacity, it is no wonder many people fear them.

It still, in my mind, goes back to the way they were brought up and they can be as good or bad as we, the humans, make them. No way should we ban or exterminate the poor dogs.

 

[JM357]

Kittcat5: Dogs do tend to like to "push around" people they feel like they can if they are dominant (and pits can be dominant (as can any dog) and there are plenty of other dogs that tend towards dominance like any of the guard dog breeds) the reason being they want to get a better standing in the "pack" and would like to take the alpha position if they can. When you flinched it sounds like the dog may have interpreted that as weakness and thought it was their opportunity to become the "pack" alpha or beta. How good was the level of control of the owner in regards to the dog? If you are going to own a dominant breed you have to be able to assert yourself as alpha (I don't mean you, I mean the owner). I was charged by pits quite a few times when I worked at the shelter but when training me they said it was essential to show the animal no fear (and definitely never run from it or back up as it will push their instinct to pursue) when going through the process of asserting dominance. Every time charged I asserted myself and after the first time there was no problem (and by asserting oneself I do not mean hitting/hurting the animal- at most if they jumped towards me I would hold me knee up when they would jump towards me and then pin it; not as easy as it sounds it is something best to be taught by someone who knows what they are doing).

Only breed I've heard to like randomly turn on people- chow chows (supposedly it is because in china they were actually bred for food and not as a pet- think about it, even as a guard dog the dog is useless if not even the person it is intended to protect can be around it).

 

[Kittycat5]

No doubt that is what happened here. I wasn't a dog owner at the time so I wasn't as familiar with their behavior and while I was not afraid of dogs, in the split second we looked at each other, I knew something was wrong and surely felt fearful.

The owners. Well, I can't be 100% sure of their dominance over the dog, one was the one who got the Pit off of me and to back down, so probably he was. The other sat there laughing. But ultimately they caused this as they thought they were robbed (not true) and the dog didn't defend their home, so apparently they decided to toughen him up. This is the main reason I feel conditioning is the main culprit in most of the tragedies caused by Pit Bull attacks, not some inherent aggression but I have limited knowledge on the genetic characteristics of domesticated dogs and if there are genes that have been discovered for canine aggression.

I do remember watching a documentary about a rather famous experiment on foxes. If I remember correctly, they were trying to breed tamer foxes so they were easier to handle for Russian fur traders. They bred the tamest ones and began to notice changes in fur coloring and ear structure and other traits. I don't know how you would begin to translate this to dogs, as they already have a long history with us and come in so many shapes and sizes, but at least it shows perhaps we could study this in canines. I think brain anatomy, levels of stress hormones and other chemical messengers would be more useful but really doubt it could truly be done.

 

[Pretty_Diamonds]

Well they say that a lot of the "bad pitbulls" are because of all the inbreeding that were done with the blue ones. That's why most of the "blue pitbulls" are labeled as violent and "unadoptable". It's so sad because we created em...

 

[JM357]

Inbreeding is a somewhat controversial topic when it comes to dogs: breeders of champion show dogs often in-breed to some degree (because while inbreeding can cause problems it can amplify and make more consistent what are percieved as positive traits as well- basically you take a line of champion show dogs and inbreed them and admittedly do tend to end up with more champions; but some of the dogs have problems as well- the thought at least among these breeders is that it is something that can be done but only to some degree and not too often. Personally, I'm not really into the show thing- I care that a dog is healthy, happy, yes maybe useful for some things (like therapy dogs, seeing eye dogs, assistance dogs that help crippled people etc.) but don't really care if it is a exact size, coat color and consistency, etc.).

Then when you come to "blues" isn't that actually a form of albinism? If so I can see it becoming a problem; no offense to anyone who is an albino (pretty rare I know) but it is pretty much a problem (sun sensitivity, vision problems, etc.) as opposed to a positive trait. It would be reasonable to think if you wanted a lot of albinos you would end up in-breeding and probably too much (if any amount is even acceptable in animals like dogs). I was also into reptiles (and probably would want a boa constrictor (common boa) or moderate or maybe even large size python like I had when I was younger if my condo allowed reptiles (for some reason you can have a large dog, and while I obviously like dogs they do have some level of risk, but not a corn snake that couldn't hurt anyone if it wanted to- I find them fascinating) and there is a huge trend to breeding albinos with them as well (I personally prefered natural coloration) with some of the hard to breed/low producing species having albinos that can cost $5,000-20,000 each (usually they are looked at as an investment to breed). While there haven't so much been behavioral problems (their behavior is a lot simpler than dogs or cats- they aren't as intelligent (a couple of species are thought to have some level of intelligence (some people claim reticulated pythons are much more intelligent than other snakes) but not really on the scale with mammals- they aren't going to love you like a dog or cat might, while they aren't evil like people charecterize them as they simply tolerate their handlers because they aren't seen as a threat or food source when handled properly) they would never survive in the wild, etc. and I think the idea of paying $10,000 for one is sort of ridiculous unless you were going to breed them and therefore sell the offspring to make a profit- so they in turn can be sold to more people who want to make a bunch of money off them, I don't really see the huge point of the whole cycle.

 

[dus_aster]

Human logic at it's all too common saddest- a small percentage of a given animal breed sometimes bred for violence inflict violence, and rather than imposing restrictions and penalties on the act of training that animal to fight we attempt to ban the animal. Another wonderful, sickening example of taking out our own shortcomings out on the world around us; always so quick to blame anyone but ourselves.

I've spent years working with thousands of dogs, and I can say with some certainty that the biggest determining factor for whether a canine exhibits violent tendencies is environment. Nature. Funny- given that, in my experience, people are the same way. Raise a dog or a human to kill, and they'll kill.
Violent owners nurture violent canines. Anxious owners foster anxious canines. Inactive owners encourage inactive canines.
Admittedly, individual temperament plays a role, but I have never once seen a hostile dog that wasn't accompanied by an inept owner. Not all hostile dogs are intentionally raised that way, but proper nurture and a level-head helps one raise a dog that is courteous, sociable, and docile.
Shit, I've seen a bichon frise who had put three larger dogs in the hospital (unprovoked attacks), and a 50% (illegal) wolf-cross more docile than a bumble bee.
Why do we punish the dog before owner? Is the human not the one responsible for their dog's actions?

Perhaps before being ready to eradicate an entire fucking sub species we should take a brief moment to look at who is to blame; us, or them?
If one wants to restrict *who* can raise a given dog, fine; that is responsible legislation, as someone with dog training experience I wholeheartedly support that, personally.
But to blame the animal for what _we_ have done to it?

 

[RDP89]

Pitbull the rapper? He sucks but I dont think hes dangerous.

 

[dus_aster]

Pitbull the rapper? He sucks but I dont think hes dangerous.

"Zigga Zigga Zigga Zow
Who got the keys to the world, now
Yours truly, bwow"
-Pitbull

He's a danger to /something/, I'm just not sure what.

 

[poloblue]

Lol @ this thread.... But much like a child...if you are nice to said pit bull said pit bull won't b an asshole....if you treat them like shit then yea they're gonna be assholes...sadly what happens is too many ppl get pits for "security" or what have you and not to form an actual bond. Leaving it in the yard all day or neglecting, that's where problems arise.

Love my pit more than anything, sweetest soul I know, might chase a squirrel sometime but hasn't bit me or anyone in 5yrs she been alive. All kisses & snuggles. Posts like these break my heart for them.

 

[GolemGolem]

I Just uploaded a bunch of pics of my vicious pit bull rescue Dolly.

Filling those kittens with rage inducing pibble milk.
Stealing hats:

And she wants to come to your town:

 

[poloblue]

She's so cute dude, deff a mans bestfriend. looks exactly like my girl only yours has a little more white n mine is like 2face w/ half black face lol

 

[alasdairm]

so cute. i love their little pig bellies

alasdair

 

[bingey]

I like pittbulls but I don't like people taking them out on a walk really just as I don't like people carrying sticks.

fuck I guess I just don't trust people.