Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[GreNME]

I believe that's the "bull" in them. if memory serves, bulldogs were bred to bite and hold the lip of a bull, the under bite specific so the bulldog could hold the bull and breath.

That's called "bull baiting" by the way. You may know that, but I doubt GlennB or Captain.Sassy do.

 

[Cleon]

My girlfriend doesn't own a pit bull. She has Irish wolfhounds and a greyhound. In fact, neither of us have ever owned a pit bull. But your failed attempt at ad hominem is noted.

He was confusing you with me. My girlfriend has a pit bull.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

False. There are plenty of packs of stray dogs that are quite capable of living on their own.
Dog^WP

One could argue that a feral dog is no longer a domesticated dog. The point was, I think, that wolves and dogs are indeed the same species (Canis lupus)--just different subspecies.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

And you must be more right than I am because you're USING ALL CAPS!

Do you understand what dog aggression is? I don't think you understand that, and you're conflating it with "aggression toward anything that moves" with regard to pit bulls.

So, when 3bodyproblem said that Jack Russels tend to bite people more because they were bred to bite things and shred them (rats in this case) I assume your sensibilities were similarly offended?

I acknowledge that american pitbull terriers were bred to fight dogs, not attack people, and so excessive aggression towards people was generally not something bred into them. However, I'm not convinced that dogs always draw this line as clearly as we do.

And yes: only slightly because while there are many breeds who seem to naturally have more disposition toward being social, there are equally many breeds to whom active participatory socialization is recommended early on to avoid dog aggression.

And there are some dogs that, as puppies, need to be brought around strangers and children a lot to socialize them with these (especially the latter) so they don't attack them when they're older. Among these breeds, the pitbull.

I wouldn't let you near any of my dogs with the type of ignorance you're displaying.

yeah because I acknowledge taht pitbulls are fighting dogs I'm now a menace to dogs everywhere

what is it with you?

However, if you were to ask me which I'd be more comfortable approaching without foreknowledge of them, I'd say the pit bull is the safer bet because they're naturally more human-friendly even to strangers.

Shepherds def. have a more stable temperament and are more intelligent than pitbulls.

You're backpedaling

ORLY?

I maintained from the get-go that I don't mind if pitbulls are bred out of existence or if dogfighting is legalised and dogfighters are licensed and regulated.

and displaying more cognitive dissonance. Basically, the impression you've just given me with this nonsense is that if a dog resembles a pit bull you don't want it in cities or around people, but if it resembles Rin Tin Tin then your insipid criteria doesn't apply.

Well I dunno what a rin tin tin is but I do like tin tin comics.

The Fila Brasileiro and the Tosa Innu look nothing like pitbulls, but they are inherently more dangerous than say a golden retriever.

Awesome: when all else fails, it comes down to a personal attack.

I responded in kind.

My pride in knowing dog behavior doesn't hinge on breed, and the more I learn the more I find that attributions to behavior on a breed-specific basis are less and less based in fact and more based in the type of emotional woo you're displaying quite clearly.

SMH.

Emotional woo?

You're the one who has a vested interest in dogs and apparently a powerful emotional attachment to the species.

 

[Furcifer]

So after years and years of breeding dogs for specific characteristics there is only a slightly elevated chance for aggression in the dogs that were selectively bred for aggression.

MAN PEOPLE SURE SUCK AT THIS BREEDING DOMESTICATED ANIMALS RACKET.


The question is, if you dind't train yoru GSD to be aggressive, and you didn't train your APBT to be aggressive, which would I rather have my children around?

Try breeding the "fetch" out of a retriever Luckily the terrier's instinct to chase small animals, or be aggressive towards them, is easier to train out of them. You're going to end up with a broken dog if you take the fetch out of a retriever.

I'd rather have my kids around a pitbull than a German Shepard. I've never owned a Shepard, and they seem like nice dogs, but they seem really needy as well. Some of the ones I've known have taken a lot to train, but it's well worth it. The others were complete nightmares and had very decent owners, experienced with dogs. I see them more of a working dog than pitters. That's my opinion.

 

[Furcifer]

So, when 3bodyproblem said that Jack Russels tend to bite people more because they were bred to bite things and shred them (rats in this case) I assume your sensibilities were similarly offended?

Clarification, I just looked this up, Wiki says foxes, not rats. So it's a little further down the line from the rat terrier. The same basic mouth and closely related to the original rat terrier. Although I don't know how much of the the rat has been exchanged for fox.

 

[GlennB]

And I have yet to see a 'break stick' specifically designed for a Labrador jaw. That would be because Lab owners have no need for them.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/StrawMan.jpg

Nothing special about how to break a pit free from a bite. You do have to remain calm while doing it, though, and as with breaking any breed of dog up there's a risk of getting bit yourself. No stick is going to take away that risk though.

Posting the nice 'strawman' cartoon is no response to the point, so maybe you could try.

What's special about a PB or a PB jaw that requires a dedicated break stick? Are specialised break sticks available for other breeds? Is there a collie break stick and if not why not?

Is 'remaining calm' while breaking a PB bite - and risking a PB bite to yourself - the kind of training all PB owners should receive? Should it be mandatory?

It sounds like you're smug about your dog-handling skills to the extent that you can no longer imagine that ordinary folks don't possess them. Fact is they don't. APB's are bought by, and rehomed to, everyday Johns and Janes by the thousand. No licence required.

 

[a_unique_person]

That claim is completely unfalsifiable; if there's a Pit bull that hasn't been vicious, aggressive, or deadly, you just write it off as "it'll snap someday!"

As such, this strikes me as more of an article of faith than the result of empirical evidence.

No, I am going on the advice of Dr Hugh Wirth of the RSPCA, who is an expert on dogs. According to him, dogs are animals, with the wildness bred out of them to a certain extent. That extent depends on the breed. Any dog, even the most placid, can 'snap' and revert to the 'wild' behaviour. So according to him, it is just a matter of odds. A pit bull is more likely to snap, but you can't ever say exactly when or why it will happen. When it does, due to it's 'design', it will cause far more damage than a lot of breeds.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/pit-bull-attacks-man-kills-dog/story-e6frf7jo-1225788097621

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..........
Nothing special about how to break a pit free from a bite. You do have to remain calm while doing it, though, and as with breaking any breed of dog up there's a risk of getting bit yourself. No stick is going to take away that risk though.

Yeah, right ...

That's all we need to know to make the Pit Bull the preferred breed for the family pet ...

Remain calm, while the dog has your three year old's face in it's mouth ...

 

[GreNME]

So, when 3bodyproblem said that Jack Russels tend to bite people more because they were bred to bite things and shred them (rats in this case) I assume your sensibilities were similarly offended?

I would say that JRs weren't "bred to bite things" and that's an inaccurate description. Your attempt to bring offense into the mix is an example of you bringing emotional nonsense to the discussion. I've maintained that you are making loads of claims from ignorance and loading most of your posts with emotional language. You've failed completely at bringing evidence to the table, and when faced with actual authoritative sources on the dog breed you ignore them and make up strawmen to attack.

If anything, I'm amused at how you're following the Truther Method of Logic to maintain your insistence about pit bulls.

I acknowledge that american pitbull terriers were bred to fight dogs,

No they weren't, and we've already been over this. Just because you refuse to accept what's been shown plainly to you does not make your assertions any more factual. Your insistence at this is just as funny as Truthers claiming the WTC towers fell at "freefall speeds."

not attack people, and so excessive aggression towards people was generally not something bred into them. However, I'm not convinced that dogs always draw this line as clearly as we do.

You're arguing from incredulity (and ignorance). You can't provide evidence about your assumption, but no matter how many times the breed standard is pointed out to you then you can always back into this "I'm not convinced" wall of incredulity.

And yes: only slightly because while there are many breeds who seem to naturally have more disposition toward being social, there are equally many breeds to whom active participatory socialization is recommended early on to avoid dog aggression.

And there are some dogs that, as puppies, need to be brought around strangers and children a lot to socialize them with these (especially the latter) so they don't attack them when they're older. Among these breeds, the pitbull.

First: are you agreeing with what I said or not? You're not being clear on that.

Second: socialization isn't "so they don't attack" it's so that a dog doesn't fear people and other animals that aren't the ones they grew up with. Your description displays ignorance again because it's already been pointed out that pit bulls as a breed standard are people friendly, even with strangers, to the point where they are not recommended for guarding work.

I wouldn't let you near any of my dogs with the type of ignorance you're displaying.

yeah because I acknowledge taht pitbulls are fighting dogs I'm now a menace to dogs everywhere

what is it with you?

You replace what I said with a ridiculous statement I didn't say at all, and you ask me what's with me? You need to check yourself and maybe respond to what I'm saying instead of what you make up.

I don't let folks who are clearly clueless about dog behavior to be around my dogs if I have any say in the matter (in public places I don't all the time). I was pretty clear about that considering I used the words "with the type of ignorance you're displaying."

However, if you were to ask me which I'd be more comfortable approaching without foreknowledge of them, I'd say the pit bull is the safer bet because they're naturally more human-friendly even to strangers.

Shepherds def. have a more stable temperament and are more intelligent than pitbulls.

Wrong and wrong. Both are very intelligent and, as you seem to be ignoring, pit bulls as a breed tend to be more human friendly than GSDs. The German shepherd was long bred to be out in the fields and pastures moving goats and sheep and cattle around, while the pit bulls were bred to work along side people and to hunt with them and live in their homes. This is a characteristic of the breed for pit bulls, based on their registered standard going back more than a century. You simply asserting otherwise does not change that.

you're backpedaling

ORLY?

YARLY.

I maintained from the get-go that I don't mind if pitbulls are bred out of existence or if dogfighting is legalised and dogfighters are licensed and regulated.

And yet you fail to maintain that German shepherds, border collies, Aussies, and other herding breeds should be brought out of homes and put back in pastures and herding fields. In fact you start made qualifying statements in the attempt to avoid making as ridiculous a demand as you're making about pit bulls for the herding breeds-- which is pretty much backpedaling.

Well I dunno what a rin tin tin is but I do like tin tin comics.

The Fila Brasileiro and the Tosa Innu look nothing like pitbulls, but they are inherently more dangerous than say a golden retriever.

You keep making claims but failing to provide any evidence about this "inherent" nature. Filas are not as a standard people friendly like the pit bull is, but they're no more inherently people aggressive than most other mastiff breeds. Pretty much the same applies with the Tosa-- which, by the way, is way closer to "bred specifically to fight" than the pit bull is. You're just tossing spaghetti at a wall now and naming all sorts of large and giant breeds to avoid providing any evidence for your irrational assertions about pit bulls.

Awesome: when all else fails, it comes down to a personal attack.

I responded in kind.

You must still be confusing me with someone else, because not only was your personal attack incorrect in assumption about my personal life, I also have not attacked you personally in this thread. If you think calling you incorrect and ignorance is a personal attack then perhaps you should start providing evidence for any of the nonsense you've been asserting instead of taking it personally. This is subject matter you obviously have no knowledge of, so your choices are to admit as much or go get some knowledge on the subject-- until then you're ignorant and wrong, and your assertions otherwise are ridiculous.

My pride in knowing dog behavior doesn't hinge on breed, and the more I learn the more I find that attributions to behavior on a breed-specific basis are less and less based in fact and more based in the type of emotional woo you're displaying quite clearly.

SMH.

Emotional woo?

You're the one who has a vested interest in dogs and apparently a powerful emotional attachment to the species.

And yet you're the one POSTING IN ALL CAPS and making strawman arguments full of emotional language, as well as assuming that you know my and other individuals' emotional state and intentions. I've done nothing of the kind to you, and instead pointed out over and over where your sources (like the Clifton report) are fraudulent, your assertions about the history of the breed were false, and challenged you to provide any kind of evidence to back your irrational opposition to pit bulls. You have failed repeatedly, and you keep attempting to come back to my emotional state or personal feelings instead of providing an actual argument of your own.

That's pretty much textbook emotional woo coming from your end.

 

[GreNME]

No, I am going on the advice of Dr Hugh Wirth of the RSPCA, who is an expert on dogs. According to him, dogs are animals, with the wildness bred out of them to a certain extent. That extent depends on the breed. Any dog, even the most placid, can 'snap' and revert to the 'wild' behaviour. So according to him, it is just a matter of odds. A pit bull is more likely to snap, but you can't ever say exactly when or why it will happen. When it does, due to it's 'design', it will cause far more damage than a lot of breeds.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/pit-bull-attacks-man-kills-dog/story-e6frf7jo-1225788097621

If you're talking about the guy who claimed that dogs are wild and could snap at any time, then "Dr Hugh Wirth" is about as expert on the matter of dogs and dog behavior as "Dr Ron Paul" is an expert on governance and government economics. I challenge you to find any evidence that dogs are 'wild'.

-----

Yeah, right ...

That's all we need to know to make the Pit Bull the preferred breed for the family pet ...

Remain calm, while the dog has your three year old's face in it's mouth ...

You take a comment I made about separating dogs who are fighting and respond as if I was making a prescription for making the dog a better pet.

Are you even trying to seem rational here?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

\.............

You take a comment I made about separating dogs who are fighting and respond as if I was making a prescription for making the dog a better pet.

Are you even trying to seem rational here?

Cute cartoon.. I'ts getting old..

I didn't respond to what I thought was a prescription for making the dog a better pet, I was responding to your suggestion to stay calm while breaking the bite of a powerful fighting dog, doing what it does best ..
Do you have reason to believe this technique is fairly common knowledge among Pit bull owners ?

I missed the context about breaking up a dog fight .. Could you point me in that direction ?

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know if anyone's posted this but the American Temperament Test Society has some actual data to argue over.

ATTS.org

Interestingly they've got the pass rate for the jack Russel and the Pitbull at nearly the same rate, about 84%. So much for my anecdotal evidence.

@CS

You really are using some loaded language. Words like "dangerous" are really subjective. I've never been bit by a dog and don't find them dangerous after being around hundreds. I've been around a handful of horses though, and if you want to talk about "dangerous" talk about horses. I don't feel comfortable around them and even the tamest ones seem to spook, bite and kick at the drop of a hat. I don't know anyone who has worked with horses that hasn't had a bone broke or been bitten to the point of needing stitches. They kill people, make a huge mess and are used and abused for entertainment and gambling.

The notion that the ownership of horses should be limited by the government is ridiculous. But here we are talking about doing that with a breed of dog? Seems a little silly. Ownership has responsibilities and ultimately it's the owners that need to be held responsible.

 

[Toke]

I am reading "The Pit Bull Placebo" and is currently at the Newfoundlander.

So far it only confirms my opinion that it is certain owners that should be banned. (possible given a goldfish)

 

[GlennB]

The notion that the ownership of horses should be limited by the government is ridiculous. But here we are talking about doing that with a breed of dog? Seems a little silly. Ownership has responsibilities and ultimately it's the owners that need to be held responsible.

It's extremely unlikely that a horse will be in anybody's back garden in close proximity to small child. Or that a horse will jump a fence and sink it's teeth into to neck of another horse and need separating from its 'target'.

So really it's your comparison that's a little silly.

The ownership - at household level - of large cats would be a better comparison. If a person wants to own a tiger then that's fine by me. As long as the animal never gets to interact with people who cannot be expected to know specialist animal psychology techniques, or possess specialist tools, for dealing with unexpected tiger attack.

My favourite quote (roughly) from a previous thread just like this one :
"Hey, a dog is just a dog, right?"

Well - a cat is just a cat, right ?

 

[GlennB]

deleted

 

[Furcifer]

It's extremely unlikely that a horse will be in anybody's back garden in close proximity to small child. Or that a horse will jump a fence and sink it's teeth into to neck of another horse and need separating from its 'target'.

So really it's your comparison that's a little silly.

The ownership - at household level - of large cats would be a better comparison. If a person wants to own a tiger then that's fine by me. As long as the animal never gets to interact with people who cannot be expected to know specialist animal psychology techniques, or possess specialist tools, for dealing with unexpected tiger attack.

My favourite quote (roughly) from a previous thread just like this one :
"Hey, a dog is just a dog, right?"

Well - a cat is just a cat, right ?

Actually aside from race horses, most horses are going to be in proximity of small children. Most notably parades or riding schools, and I can assure you both are full of children. (Oh and let a mare get in with a colt, they will kill it. Nasty creatures horses.)
The only reason they aren't kept in the city or as pets is because they are too big and we invented the car. There was a recent time however where most children were responsible for the care, feeding, and grooming of the family horse. And I'm sure kids got hurt.
But times have changed and they are no longer a necessity. So you are correct, they aren't going to get out and and into peoples gardens as often as a dog.

But we were talking about "dangerous" animals. Not the likelihood of them getting out and winding up in your garden. So I'm afraid the comparison is a little silly only after you shift the goal posts.

As for your Tiger analogy, well that's a wild animal not a domesticated one. I'm afraid that's an entirely different debate.

 

[GlennB]

But we were talking about "dangerous" animals. Not the likelihood of them getting out and winding up in your garden. So I'm afraid the comparison is a little silly only after you shift the goal posts.

You lost me there. The pit bull is in the garden already as a household pet, and often around kids who are likely to run around squealing and frolicking and falling over. Acting like yappy little dogs in many respects. And the pit bull is as likely to get through the fence and onto other people's property as the next dog. Maybe more so.

As for your Tiger analogy, well that's a wild animal not a domesticated one. I'm afraid that's an entirely different debate.

It's arguable that household cats are not domesticated at all, just socialised from generation to generation. If humans ceased to exist overnight then cats wouldn't bat an eyelid. Whereas cattle might well, having had a great deal of their native aggression 'domesticated' out of them.

 

[Furcifer]

You lost me there. The pit bull is in the garden already as a household pet, and often around kids who are likely to run around squealing and frolicking and falling over. Acting like yappy little dogs in many respects. And the pit bull is as likely to get through the fence and onto other people's property as the next dog. Maybe more so.

Ok,but explain this: from here (first stat that came up on google)

Human Deaths Caused By Animals (1991, it's dropped for dogs since then)

Horses
219

Dogs
14

Compare this: 0.06 deaths occurred per 100,000 persons per year due from horses- that's 184.2 deaths per year in the UShere

to this:Throughout the United States, dog attacks on people happen 3 million to 5 million times per year. The average is 20 human deaths each year

Any way you slice it Glen, you are about 10 times more likely to get killed by a horse. 18 times more likely to get killed by a horse than a pit bull.

Now you tell me what's dangerous? I saw 3 Pitbulls today, not a single horse. There isn't a horse within 15 KM of me right now, yet I am 18 times more likely to get killed by one!

 

[a_unique_person]

If you're talking about the guy who claimed that dogs are wild and could snap at any time, then "Dr Hugh Wirth" is about as expert on the matter of dogs and dog behavior as "Dr Ron Paul" is an expert on governance and government economics. I challenge you to find any evidence that dogs are 'wild'.

-----

Dr Hugh Wirth is head of the RSPCA in Australia, and a vet with many years experience. I have a jack russel/maltese cross who is very placid, except if you try to clip his nails. Don't try it without putting a muzzle on him, you will be bitten.

Even if they don't go for people, as you claim, the exmple I linked to is enough to have them banned. They go for other dogs. People walk their dogs.