Pitbulls. Do they have a bad rep?

[Cleon]

You can breed a temperament into a dog, just as you can make them a different colour or shape. Pitbulls have been bred to be vicious, aggressive and deadly. Even trained dogs have will revert, and you can't predict what will make them revert.

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.

 

[Tricky]

Perhaps the problem could be solved by strict control of who gets to own what breed of dog, and who will have to settle for a goldfish.
(number of tattoos may be apparent after exam.)

I feel the same way about people who breed and raise vicious children.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

You seriously must be joking. The "pit" in their name has to do with whelping them in pits with rats in them,

Yes, the word 'pit' in 'pit bull' has absolutely nothing to do with the venue of dog fighting being a pit.

Gimme a break.

http://pitbullfamily.topicboards.com/bloodlines-f27/indian-bolio-rom-t784.htm
"His sire was the famous pit ace Klaus' Zeke and his dam was Klaus' Goldie. "

"Bolio as a producer was the best stud dog that I know of that ever lived. He was bred to some poor cur bitches and produced excellent pit dogs from them. When he was bred to good bitches, those results were amazing."

I guess they're talking about these dogs' time as puppies in pits full of rats.

the "bull" in their name comes from their origin as bull-baiting dogs-- they weren't developed for dog fighting, and the continuance of this myth

No.

The pitbull terrier resulted from crossing bulldogs with terriers. Bulldogs were primarily used for bull baiting. Pitbull terriers and bull terriers were bred for dog fighting.

 

[Toke]

I feel the same way about people who breed and raise vicious children.

There is likely some overlap in persons, but there are legal problems with the "breeding permit" idea.

 

[GreNME]

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying that the years of selective breeding for animal aggression and gameness so that pit bulls could excel at dogfighting has had no impact on the innate aptitude or temperament of pitbulls?

Just like years of breeding for herding ability has had no impact on collies' natural herding abilities?

Just like years of breeding to chase and burrow after rodents has had no impact on terriers' fondness for digging and chasing smaller animals?

Just like years of breeding for duck hunting has had no impact on retrievers' preference for swimming?

Fascinating.

Has had no impact? You're seriously under-informed in all of those cases. Herding breed dogs still have some behaviors left over from their more specialized days being used almost exclusively as herding breeds, but unless you can provide evidence that there has been no change in them you're just repeating "conventional wisdom" statements, which are often exaggerated, overestimated, or just plain false (again, like the stupid "locking jaws" myth). For retrievers there are reams of examples of information for precisely why their hunting prowess has diminished over the decades.

Essentially, you're demanding that 70+ years of pit bulls being primarily house pets (throughout the 20th century) be ignored so that your assertions of gameness be taken as the only evidence. I've already posted the pdf for Pit Bull Placebo, and while I understand it's a lot of words to read you'll find it far more informative and better sourced than things like the faulty Clifton Report.

Yes, the word 'pit' in 'pit bull' has absolutely nothing to do with the venue of dog fighting being a pit.

Gimme a break.

http://pitbullfamily.topicboards.com/bloodlines-f27/indian-bolio-rom-t784.htm
"His sire was the famous pit ace Klaus' Zeke and his dam was Klaus' Goldie. "

"Bolio as a producer was the best stud dog that I know of that ever lived. He was bred to some poor cur bitches and produced excellent pit dogs from them. When he was bred to good bitches, those results were amazing."

I guess they're talking about these dogs' time as puppies in pits full of rats.




No.

The pitbull terrier resulted from crossing bulldogs with terriers. Bulldogs were primarily used for bull baiting. Pitbull terriers and bull terriers were bred for dog fighting.

Seriously, you're exhibiting classic selection bias. The United Kennel Club history on the breed: " Sometime during the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the Bulldog. The result was a dog that embodied all of the virtues attributed to great warriors: strength, indomitable courage, and gentleness with loved ones. Immigrants brought these bull and terrier crosses to the United States. The American Pit Bull Terrier’s many talents did not go unnoticed by farmers and ranchers who used their APBTs as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions. Today, the American Pit Bull Terrier continues to demonstrate its versatility, competing successfully in Obedience, Tracking, Agility and Weight Pulls, as well as Conformation.

The United Kennel Club was the first registry to recognize the American Pit Bull Terrier. UKC founder C. Z. Bennett assigned UKC registration number 1 to his own APBT, Bennett’s Ring, in 1898."

But hey, continue to scour the web for random pages that simply confirm what you want to hear, while I'll continue to actually refer to the authorities on the breed standard, who actually have kept historical records of their registered breeds.

Also, I assume you demand that GSDs, border collies, Aussies, and other herding breeds stop being used as pets and get back in the fields, right? Chihuahuas should be removed from pet homes and be put back into service as vermin hunters, right? And deerhounds shouldn't be in homes, they should be out with deer and other game hunters, correct?

Seriously, the ridiculousness of your statements doesn't even border on anything resembling rational discourse.

 

[GreNME]

You’re painting with too broad a brush, just as the Pit-Bull death squad folks are. Plenty of small and toy dogs love being held, and react very calmly at all times in that situation. And I believe territory is probably the least likely explanation.

<sniped stuff>

If little dogs snap and bite more frequently than big dogs do, the more likely explanation is that they are less well trained by their owners.

I would love to have a discussion on dog behavior and the potential causes, but I'm not willing to derail the thread for one here. Suffice to say nothing I said actually disagrees with the alternatives you offered, and I was very careful to not be absolute in presenting a couple of examples, but to get to specifics of behavior would require far more than I think would be warranted for this thread considering all the ridiculous myths being perpetrated about pit bulls, which is the actual subject matter at hand.

 

[GreNME]

You can breed a temperament into a dog, just as you can make them a different colour or shape. Pitbulls have been bred to be vicious, aggressive and deadly. Even trained dogs have will revert, and you can't predict what will make them revert.

Pit bulls have not "been bred to be vicious, aggressive and deadly" to human beings. In fact, they have been bred to be precisely the opposite to people. Again, I quote: "APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work."

A pit bull attacking a human out of aggression is (and has been for a century) uncharacteristic of the breed.

 

[MikeMangum]

Ah, there lies the crux of the problem. Are these behavioral tendencies inherent, or taught?

Pit Bulls are dogs. You treat dogs well, train them well, and they're loving, loyal dogs. If you underfeed them, abuse them, neglect them, and so on, you get an aggressive, vicious animal. It doesn't matter if it's a Labradoodle or a APBT.

Wrong. There are distinct breed temperaments that are genetic. Gameness certificates, for example, are earned by testing a dog has not been trained, specifically to test instinctual gameness.

Any population is going to have a range of temperaments, but the curves for different breeds are not the same.

And frankly, it isn't even just aggressiveness that is at issue. There are actually many other breeds that are more agressive, but less dangerous. For example, Chihuahuas are very aggressive dogs, but aren't dangerous. Many of the descendents of the old English bulldogs are dogs that bite-and-hold. The terriers were all bred for bite and hold behavior as well. A German shephard bites and releases. A dobermann pinscher bites and releases. The dogs that were bred specifically NOT to bite and release, as a general rule, have very different behavior when they do bite; they bite, hold, and shake.

Even aggression comes from different things; some dogs attacks out of fear (which can be any breed), some dogs attack principally to gain dominance (and showing submission stops the attack), some dogs attack out of territoriality (such as rottweilers) and are much less of a concern when you aren't on their territory, some dogs attack out of pure aggression. Some dog breeds were specifically bred so that once they do attack, they don't give up the attack for anything.

It is the combination of a bunch of factors that make pit bulls more dangerous than most other breeds of dogs. They are fairly powerful dogs, who were bred for gameness and bite-and-hold behavior with a very strong bite, so that when they do attack, the attack is much harder to stop, both because the dog is much less likely to give up the attack AND because it is much harder to get the dog to let go. Like I mentioned earlier, how many dog rescue outfits recommend carrying around a "break stick" as a means of prying your own dog's jaws apart in the case it attacks someone when the breed in question is golden retriever?

http://www.pbrc.net/breaksticks.html

What Is a Break Stick?
A break stick is a device inserted into the mouth of a pit bull (behind the molars) to facilitate the release of its grip on another dog.

Remember: pit bulls do not have a special mechanism or enzyme that allows them to "lock” their jaw, nor do they possess a higher than average “bite pressure.” They simply have the determination of a terrier.

Not all pit bulls are aggressive toward other dogs. But because the breed has a somewhat higher tendency for dog aggression, break sticks are useful tools to have in a multi-dog household. Please read the following guidelines before attempting to break up a fight using a break stick.

Why Should Responsible Pit Bull Owners Have a Break Stick?
Because canines are pack animals, fights are possible in any multi-dog household, no matter what breed of dog you own. A responsible owner should take measures to prevent such fights, but he or she should also be prepared for the worst. The goal of any owner should be to break up a fight quickly and efficiently. The majority of breeds will snap erratically at their opponent, biting and releasing repeatedly. As terriers, pit bulls will usually bite and hold. Contrary to popular myth, this is not some kind of special pit bull behavior; it is merely terrier behavior. As its name suggests, a break stick is designed to break this determined terrier hold. This is the safest, easiest, and most effective way to stop a fight.

...

Before Grip
If the dogs don't have a hold yet, you may be able to break the fight using other methods. Jerking the dogs back by their collars, a loud and firm break command, a bucket of cold water, a water hose, or placing a barrier such as a baby gate between the two dogs may be enough to stop them. Be safe: don't put your hands anywhere near the mouth of the dogs.

How to Break Up a Fight
If one of the dogs has a grip, it’s time to use a break stick.

It is best if there are two people to break up a fight, but you can do it by yourself if you have no choice. If both dogs are fighting and you are alone, you might need to tie one of the dogs to something solid. When one of the dogs is tied up, you must "break" the one that is not tied first, and pull him/her off right away.

Walk over to the dogs, straddle one that has a hold, and then lock your legs around the dog's hips just in front of the hindquarters. Make sure your legs are locked securely around the dog. Your break stick will be in one hand, so with your free hand, grab your dog firmly by his collar and pull upward slightly.

Insert your breaking stick behind the molars where the gap is found. Sometimes you need to work the stick in just a bit if the gap is small. The stick should be inserted from ½ to 1½ inches into the dog's mouth.

Turn the stick as if you're twisting the throttle of a motorcycle. This action will cause the dog to readjust its grip, and it will bite onto the stick, releasing the other dog. If both dogs have a hold, you will then have to break the second dog from the first.

Again, if you are going to argue that the breed plays little part in this behavior, you would need to explain why golden retrievers never engage in the same type of bite and hold behavior or why there are orders of magnitude fewer fatalities from golden retriever attacks than pitbull attacks even though golden retrievers greatly outnumber pitbulls.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf
The numbers are: attacks doing bodily harm, child victims, adult victims, deaths, maimings

Golden retriever 6 6 0 1 4
...
Pit bull terrier 1110 495 397 104 608

There were notes for some of the breeds to explain unusual situations:

Golden retriever: One dog responsible for an attack was rabid. Another
accidentally strangled Kaitlyn Hassard, 6, of Manorville, Long Island,
on 1/24/06, by tugging at her scarf.

So out of a total of 6 attacks and 1 fatalities for golden retrievers, 1 attack (the fatality) was not an actual attack but an accident, and another attack was due to rabies.

 

[tesscaline]

Anyone here arguing for the banning of a certain breed or breeds (any of them, mind you) should really read The Pit Bull Placebo by Karen Delise. It's available freely, online, here.

I also have to wonder how many of you would immediately change your tunes if we were talking about a "breed" of human instead of a breed of dog. Because really, a lot of the arguments I'm seeing here from the anti-pitbull side are shockingly similar to much of the racist crap I've seen and heard from people wanting to go back to the days of segregation or even slavery and, more recently, the racist crap about why so many black people populate US jails. What in FSM's name are you all thinking??

 

[GreNME]

Wrong. There are distinct breed temperaments that are genetic. Gameness certificates, for example, are earned by testing a dog has not been trained, specifically to test instinctual gameness.

You have no actual clue what a Certificate of Gameness is, do you?

This is why you guys trying to bang this "gameness" drum are making yourselves look foolish-- you seem to be using a whole different set of definitions than those of us who actually work with dogs and dog behavior.

Any population is going to have a range of temperaments, but the curves for different breeds are not the same.

And yet they're far closer than any of your fraudulent data or unfalsifiable woo can provide any evidence to contradict. Just claiming so isn't proof, so feel free to start providing some.

And frankly, it isn't even just aggressiveness that is at issue. There are actually many other breeds that are more agressive, but less dangerous. For example, Chihuahuas are very aggressive dogs, but aren't dangerous. Many of the descendents of the old English bulldogs are dogs that bite-and-hold. The terriers were all bred for bite and hold behavior as well. A German shephard bites and releases. A dobermann pinscher bites and releases. The dogs that were bred specifically NOT to bite and release, as a general rule, have very different behavior when they do bite; they bite, hold, and shake.

I really wish we lived close to each other, so I could bring you to a schutzhund training session. GSDs, Rotties and Dobies will do whatever they're trained or learn to do, including biting, holding, and shaking. But you're wrong about aggression: that's one of the main factors to be concerned with in temperament, and I challenge you to find any evidence of aggression toward humans being bred for historically with the breed.

Even aggression comes from different things; some dogs attacks out of fear (which can be any breed), some dogs attack principally to gain dominance (and showing submission stops the attack), some dogs attack out of territoriality (such as rottweilers) and are much less of a concern when you aren't on their territory, some dogs attack out of pure aggression. Some dog breeds were specifically bred so that once they do attack, they don't give up the attack for anything.

More

It's like you took semi-accurate descriptions of different things and taped them together in a way that managed to reduce the accuracy while pretending to be providing some sense of authority.

How about you provide evidence of pit bulls ever being bred to be human-aggressive?

It is the combination of a bunch of factors that make pit bulls more dangerous than most other breeds of dogs. They are fairly powerful dogs, who were bred for gameness and bite-and-hold behavior with a very strong bite, so that when they do attack, the attack is much harder to stop, both because the dog is much less likely to give up the attack AND because it is much harder to get the dog to let go. Like I mentioned earlier, how many dog rescue outfits recommend carrying around a "break stick" as a means of prying your own dog's jaws apart in the case it attacks someone when the breed in question is golden retriever?

http://www.pbrc.net/breaksticks.html

What ridiculous woo you're pushing here. The attack is no less difficult to stop than any other determined dog, it's the approach to stopping them that has to be different in order to effectively derail their focus. You're still using a twisted definition of "gameness" to try to justify your woo-filled descriptions.

I can stop a pit bull attack without a break stick, and have done so in the past. It's all about understanding how the dogs focus and how to break that focus without hurting the dogs involved or yourself. Break sticks are a convenience tool specifically designed for the type of jaws of bully breeds, they're not a requisite. You're mining for confirmation without any actual understanding of the things you're citing as evidence.

Again, if you are going to argue that the breed plays little part in this behavior, you would need to explain why golden retrievers never engage in the same type of bite and hold behavior or why there are orders of magnitude fewer fatalities from golden retriever attacks than pitbull attacks even though golden retrievers greatly outnumber pitbulls.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog Attacks 1982 to 2006 Clifton.pdf
The numbers are: attacks doing bodily harm, child victims, adult victims, deaths, maimings


There were notes for some of the breeds to explain unusual situations:



So out of a total of 6 attacks and 1 fatalities for golden retrievers, 1 attack (the fatality) was not an actual attack but an accident, and another attack was due to rabies.

Again,

The Clifton Report is a fraud.

 

[GreNME]

Anyone here arguing for the banning of a certain breed or breeds (any of them, mind you) should really read The Pit Bull Placebo by Karen Delise. It's available freely, online, here.

I've already linked it twice in this thread. I've also pointed to my own past post as well as another web page (on the NCRC site) that points out why Clifton's report is fraudulent, yet people continue to cite it in this thread.

Seriously, this is like arguing with birthers and Truthers.

 

[tesscaline]

I've already linked it twice in this thread. I've also pointed to my own past post as well as another web page (on the NCRC site) that points out why Clifton's report is fraudulent, yet people continue to cite it in this thread.

Seriously, this is like arguing with birthers and Truthers.

Just adding another voice to yours. Maybe if enough people post it, they'll start listening.

 

[GreNME]

I've actually bought copies of the book and handed them out to city council members. My better half has gone over the numbers with politicians and lobbyists. Facts take a while to set in while lies and woo take hold almost instantaneously, particularly when "think of the children!" statements are involved.


ETA: and I don't even own a pit bull. I have a GSD and Irish wolfhounds. However, breed-specific laws inevitably begin targeting more and more breeds the longer they're around.

 

[Steelmage]

Indeed, except I wouldn't say magical. After all, they were bred to fight dogs amirite? (ouch, tongue planted too much in cheek for a moment)

The biggest flaw of the magical thinking attributed to pit bulls (besides the blatant falsehoods) is the misconception that somehow the purpose-based breeding that developed the dog's type has somehow set itself in stone with regard to their behavior and disposition. If that were true no one would be able to handle owning akitas or chows or mastiffs and a handful of other dogs, all of whom had been bred for aggressiveness in the past. Heck, if the purpose-based typing held absolute I'd have to be careful with my Irish wolfhounds as well (who were "bred to" kill wolves).

The reality, though, is that while an akita or chow might be high strung and territorial they generally aren't always at the ready to rip someone's throat. Most mastiff breeds are big, slobbery, adorable goofballs instead of the intimidating and dangerous gatekeepers (and guards, particularly against wolves/dogs/bears/men) that they were "bred to" be. While some folks still course wolfhounds and deerhounds and other sighthounds, I wouldn't put most of them up for a genuine large-game hunt. Hell, even the vast majority of Labrador retrievers aren't up to doing much more than toy retrieval out of the water any more. Yet, for some reason, there are those who think putting out the less-than-correct description of the purpose-breeding of pit bulls automagically means that the pit puppy you may see before you has the seed of a juggernaut dog-killer hidden inside.

Honestly, it's no different than any of the other woo out there. (Some) People believe it because they want to believe it, and they'll accept corroborating evidence no matter how spurious or fraudulent.

The magical part (and the rest of the post) was sarcasm but not at you but public perception of the dog. Mastiff can very well be dangerous. I am surprise you did not put up there caucasian shepherds, which looks cute until they go cujo.

 

[Steelmage]

Anyone here arguing for the banning of a certain breed or breeds (any of them, mind you) should really read The Pit Bull Placebo by Karen Delise. It's available freely, online, here.

I also have to wonder how many of you would immediately change your tunes if we were talking about a "breed" of human instead of a breed of dog. Because really, a lot of the arguments I'm seeing here from the anti-pitbull side are shockingly similar to much of the racist crap I've seen and heard from people wanting to go back to the days of segregation or even slavery and, more recently, the racist crap about why so many black people populate US jails. What in FSM's name are you all thinking??

I thought racists wanted black people to go back to Africa.

 

[Morrigan]

I also have to wonder how many of you would immediately change your tunes if we were talking about a "breed" of human instead of a breed of dog. Because really, a lot of the arguments I'm seeing here from the anti-pitbull side are shockingly similar to much of the racist crap I've seen and heard from people wanting to go back to the days of segregation or even slavery and, more recently, the racist crap about why so many black people populate US jails. What in FSM's name are you all thinking??

Now that's just getting ridiculous. The race card? Seriously? First, there are no "breeds" of humans. Dog (or any animal) breeds are created by genetic traits artificially selected by the breeders. Second, comparing humans to dogs is sheer absurdity. In fact, I think it's far more offensive to compare human ethnicities to dog breeds than it is to assert that a specific dog breed might be undesirable.

What in FSM's name are you thinking, indeed? There might be very good arguments as to why considering certain breeds as undesirable would be wrong, but comparing it to racism is so profoundly absurd that I can't help but shake my head.

 

[GreNME]

Now that's just getting ridiculous. The race card? Seriously? First, there are no "breeds" of humans. Dog (or any animal) breeds are created by genetic traits artificially selected by the breeders. Second, comparing humans to dogs is sheer absurdity. In fact, I think it's far more offensive to compare human ethnicities to dog breeds than it is to assert that a specific dog breed might be undesirable.

What in FSM's name are you thinking, indeed? There might be very good arguments as to why considering certain breeds as undesirable would be wrong, but comparing it to racism is so profoundly absurd that I can't help but shake my head.

I think it's a little extreme, but the types of justifications used by racists are also used with breed-specific myths. The example of constant misuse of the term "gameness" (which is just called "tenacity" in other breeds) is displaying that kind of faulty justifications being used.

My GSD has a fairly strong prey drive, which actually makes him a good candidate for certain types of instruction and training and less so for others. The gameness of pit bulls is a similar type of factor when it comes to training and instruction, but is otherwise a descriptor in temperament that isn't really useful in determining aggression or the possibility of aggression.

 

[tesscaline]

Now that's just getting ridiculous. The race card? Seriously? First, there are no "breeds" of humans. Dog (or any animal) breeds are created by genetic traits artificially selected by the breeders. Second, comparing humans to dogs is sheer absurdity. In fact, I think it's far more offensive to compare human ethnicities to dog breeds than it is to assert that a specific dog breed might be undesirable.

Double standards for the win?

What in FSM's name are you thinking, indeed? There might be very good arguments as to why considering certain breeds as undesirable would be wrong, but comparing it to racism is so profoundly absurd that I can't help but shake my head.

Um. I'm not comparing it to racism. I'm comparing the justifications used in both cases. The justifications being used by the anti-pitbull crowd about why pit bulls should be eradicated are basically the same as the justifications I've heard used by racists about why black people should be eradicated. i.e. the behaviors exhibited by these two groups are genetic in nature, proper education and training can't possibly help, the only thing to do is just sterilize all the ones we have left and let them die off -- or just kill them all outright.

Seriously, some of the posts in this thread I could take, remove the "pit bull" part, substitute "black people" and have material ideal for posting over on the KKK's forums.

I'm not trying to say that talking about a dog breed is the same as being racist. I'm attacking the lack of logic being used by the people talking about said dog breed. Please, do recognize and understand the difference before you start making yourself a poster child for my point.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Has had no impact? You're seriously under-informed in all of those cases. Herding breed dogs still have some behaviors left over from their more specialized days being used almost exclusively as herding breeds, but unless you can provide evidence that there has been no change in them you're just repeating "conventional wisdom" statements, which are often exaggerated, overestimated, or just plain false (again, like the stupid "locking jaws" myth). For retrievers there are reams of examples of information for precisely why their hunting prowess has diminished over the decades.

Essentially, you're demanding that 70+ years of pit bulls being primarily house pets (throughout the 20th century) be ignored so that your assertions of gameness be taken as the only evidence.

You're contradicting yourself here.

The herding dogs still have herding instincts.
We agree on this.

I say the fighting dogs still have fighting instincts.

You (alternately) say that they were not bred as fighting dogs, or that their use as loving pets and gentle sniffers of daffodils has erased their fighting instincts.

Seriously, you're exhibiting classic selection bias. The United Kennel Club history on the breed: " Sometime during the nineteenth century, dog fanciers in England, Ireland and Scotland began to experiment with crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers, looking for a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the Bulldog.

Why, pray tell, did they need such a dog?

The result was a dog that embodied all of the virtues attributed to great warriors: strength, indomitable courage, and gentleness with loved ones. Immigrants brought these bull and terrier crosses to the United States. The American Pit Bull Terrier’s many talents did not go unnoticed by farmers and ranchers who used their APBTs as catch dogs for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions. Today, the American Pit Bull Terrier continues to demonstrate its versatility, competing successfully in Obedience, Tracking, Agility and Weight Pulls, as well as Conformation.

Ah, so your source agrees that the breed existed before it found a use as a catch dog, a hunter, and a gentle family companion and overall docile frolicker in meadows of clover blossoms.

I wonder why it was originally bred...?

Tell me GrenME, have ANY dogs EVER been specifically bred for fighting in pits?

But hey, continue to scour the web for random pages that simply confirm what you want to hear, while I'll continue to actually refer to the authorities on the breed standard, who actually have kept historical records of their registered breeds.

You know, at the end of the day whether the APBT was bred for dogfighting (the truth) or just used in dogfighting (your imagined reality) is somewhat moot. Regardless of the origins of these characteristics, the dog has characteristics that make it arguably the best game dog in the world.

Also, I assume you demand that GSDs, border collies, Aussies, and other herding breeds stop being used as pets and get back in the fields, right?

Well, I think those dogs generally need more exercise than they get in an urban environment... collies especially. But the characteristics that make a dog a good herder of sheep or cattle are quite different from the inherent characteristics that make a dog an excellent fighter.

Chihuahuas should be removed from pet homes and be put back into service as vermin hunters, right? And deerhounds shouldn't be in homes, they should be out with deer and other game hunters, correct?

nothing wrong with either of those uses of animals, though cats are better at catching mice than dogs IMO.

Again, even if you don't specifically buy a terrier to hunt weasels, the weasel hunting instincts of a terrier are much less dangerous if they ever bubble to the surface than are the fighting instincts of the APBT or the war-like instincts of an Akita or the murderous instincts of a Fila Brasileiro.

Seriously, the ridiculousness of your statements doesn't even border on anything resembling rational discourse.

ouch...just ouch.

 

[Furcifer]

There isn't a domesticated dog on this planet that can't be trained. It's a matter of establishing dominance. My Great Dane was terrified of cats and didn't want to have anything to do with them. His was a big and clumsy pup, we had to be careful with him around cats because if he decided to shake paws with a cat, well that was the end of the cat. By the time he was 1 he didn't want to have anything to do with smaller animals, not because he was actually terrified, but because he didn't want to get into trouble. As soon as he saw them he would literally "high step" his way out of the room and hide.
Pit Bulls can be trained like any other dog. The ones that are raised properly are some of the best family dogs. But the owners have to expose them to children, other people, other dogs, cats, birds, fish, squirrels etc. The ones you hear about "snapping" are the ones that don't get exposed to cats, then suddenly get confronted by one and go "terrier" reverting back to their breeding instincts. That's not a problem with a herding dog like a Border Collie, but it can be a problem with a terrier. Any terrier, not just pit bulls.
Then there's the owners that either shouldn't have dogs, or should know to keep their dog on a very short leash. They train the aggression into the dogs, whether for fighting or security or just to chase the neighbors cat or squirrels out of the yard. That aggression, especially in a terrier can come out at any time. That's the owners fault for encouraging or allowing the behavior and not exerting their dominance.
One of the biggest mistakes I've seen people make is allowing a dog to get territorial over its food or water. They assume that's natural dog behavior and allow it. Then some 3 yr old wanders over to the dog as it's eating and gets bit. Dogs don't have territory, they don't have bowls or toys or food. They "get" what we humans give them. Anything that smells like a human is higher on the pecking order than the dog.
Too many pitbull owners don't put that much effort into training a family dog, and while that may work out alright with other breeds like a lab, it tends to backfire with terriers. They allow the dog to be aggressive at the door because it's a bad neighborhood and they want a guard dog. That's fine until that one time someone walks in unexpected, or the dog forgets where the door ends and someone gets bit, or the dogs running the street protecting the front door.
Sorry to rant but I've seen this a million times, and yes pitbulls are responsible but ONLY because the owners didn't train them properly.