Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Some facts on pit bulls
This site is pure propaganda and not unbiased at all.
Some quotes from that site:
"There is no scientific proof that genetics cause a breed of dog to be aggressive, vicious or dangerous." - testimony from Standing Committee on amendments to the Dog Owners Liability Act. 2005
No scientific proof of aggressiveness being attributable to certain breeds? That is f*cking crazy. Behaviour in dogs is bred into each breed for various reasons. Breeders take time and carefully plot the traits they want in a specific breed. Aggression, physical ability, even a dog's sense of sight or smell is controlled by breeders. The scientific proof is the variety of breeds themselves.
"Variability in behaviour has a wider range within a breed than between breeds. Within the discipline of psychobiology and animal behaviour there is no data from empirically supported studies, published in refereed scientific literature, to support the idea that one breed of dog is `vicious.' The adult behaviour of a domestic dog is determined overwhelmingly by its experiential history, environmental management and training."
So basically, what they are saying is that it is totally dependant on the outside stimuli and rearing of the individual animal? I have hammered this point to death, but no one is acknowlging it:
Why are site hounds prone to chase other animals?
Why do retrievers naturally retrieve?
Why do some breeds of dogs have a more natural affinity to water?
Why do some breeds make better shepard dogs?
cAn you see where I am going and extrapolate on that?
It is more common than not to hear 'pit bulls' referred to as "dog-aggressive". In fact, they aren't.
Well that goes against what the american kennel club and a bunch of actual pit bull breeders said at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. But what do they know?
http://www.newtownabbey.gov.uk/dogs/aggression.htm
"In the wild dogs live in packs, where one dog assumes leadership, Over centuries of domestication, dogs have relied on us as 'leader of the pack', and they have learned to serve us accordingly. A dog is happiest when it is serving, but, a dog's willingness to serve and in turn its happiness can deteriorate for various reasons including - lack of training, inappropriate training methods, spoilt indulgent lifestyle, lack of exercise, lack of social contact, general neglect. This causes the dog to resort to its primitive instincts. It should also be remembered that some breeds are naturally more aggressive than others"
The site says this one minute:
only a handful of breeds, including 'pit bulls', were bred for fighting.
aggression towards other dogs is a learned behaviour
Here's are some stunning defences of the breed
Human fatalities are not unique to 'pit bulls' by any means. Every Group of dog breeds, even several members of the Toy Group, have been attributed with human deaths. Sure, according to American statistics, there are more 'pit bulls' involved in fatal dog bites , but many other breeds have also killed.
While 'pit bulls' have caused more fatalities than any other "breed" in the United States, the percentage of the actual 'pit bull' population involved in such incidents remains miniscule, and the frequency of incidents is directly proportional to their popularity with jerks who acquire dogs for the purpose of training them to become dangerous.
Originally posted by Storm
I agree on the paragraph: Are 'Pit Bulls' More Likely To Bite?
That passage states:
The breeds at the top of biting statistics are the most popular breeds at the time. Meaning, in Canada, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, and German Shepherds and other popular breeds top the bite statistics. Any dog can bite. Any poorly trained and unsupervised dog may bite unprovoked. Breed is not the deciding factor, training and supervision is.
So basically they named three of the most popular breeds in north america. Of course these breeds will be responsible for a higher number of bites, there is a higher number of dogs. But if we are going to put any value in this stat, we should go back to where they say that PitBulls are responsible for more deaths than any other breed.
Originally posted by soleran30
That site isn't pure propaganda........c'mon if thats the case most websites are "propoganda" as well........someone is ALWAYS trying to sell their point of view.I don't feel pitbulls should be banned..........
They heavily sqew their facts to support their argument (though they don't do it very well). If you are going to title your website "Everything You Wanted To Know About 'Pit Bulls'", then perhaps they should tell the whole truth instead of their version of the truth.
And I agree, I hate the banning of a breed, it's a slippery slope, but I also hate the fact that people can't like an animal, but be totally ignorant of it's ptotential behaviour, or dismissive of the animal's peotential both good and bad.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
My first dog was a golden retriever and it was the most gentle animal I've ever seen. Goldens are amazing family dogs for this very reason. The thought that people would to that to a dog is barbaric. The thought that they would do it to a dog that doesn't have a chance in hell is horrific.
Pfff.. Who needs a pitbull anyway? Point is that their jaws are just too well developed. When an incident does happen, it's usually not pretty.
Here in Holland they get killed. I think this is a bit extreme but why were those dogs bred anyway?
Get some normal dogs instead of ugly mutant ones for crying out loud.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
That passage states:
[B]The breeds at the top of biting statistics are the most popular breeds at the time. Meaning, in Canada, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, and German Shepherds and other popular breeds top the bite statistics. Any dog can bite. Any poorly trained and unsupervised dog may bite unprovoked. Breed is not the deciding factor, training and supervision is.So basically they named three of the most popular breeds in north america. Of course these breeds will be responsible for a higher number of bites, there is a higher number of dogs. But if we are going to put any value in this stat, we should go back to where they say that PitBulls are responsible for more deaths than any other breed. [/B]
Perhaps they should have compared the number of dogs owned categorized by breed and number of dog bites categorized by breed...and then the resulting medical bills.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Haha, website just got owned.Perhaps they should have compared the number of dogs owned categorized by breed and number of dog bites categorized by breed...and then the resulting medical bills.
What's sad is that they 'owned' themselves. Once again, you can love the breed, even defend the breed, but don't deny the attributes that make it what it is.
I was thinking about this again last night, that website says that ,"Aggression is a behaviour, not a temperament".
Now aside from keeping dogs as pets I also keep fish as pets, cichlids in particular. Now there are books and books on different breeds of cichlids and everyone of them lists the temperment of each breed or species as either aggressive or non aggresive.
Tasmanian devils are considered aggresive animals by nature, and bull sharks are considered the most aggressive shark. So apparently, the general population can accept that some species of animals can be more aggresive than others.
Furthermore, Horse breeders breed horses for tempermant and bull breeders look for certain tempermants in rodeo bulls to pass down through generations. So can aggressive or passive temperment behaviour be bred into or oout of every animals but dogs?
Comments from the web pages of reputable Pit Bull Breeders:
Jumpstart American Staffordshires - Breeder of Amstaffs since the 80's. Breeding for sound minds and bodies, from top US show lines.
Celtic Amstaffs - American Staffordshire Terriers breeding for Temperament , Structure, Mind , & life time companions
Triple A's Wind Dancing Acres - Licensed Breeder, breeding for Temperament, Conformation and Intelligence. All pups Guaranted 2yr.
Nitro Amstaffs - Exhibitor and Breeder of Champions. Temperament is our number one priority! Bred to standard with proper structure and movement, never sacraficing one
Dik-Cyn Kennels - Temperament is of primary concern. Please visit our website for info about us and our breeding program
All these breeders (and many more) note that temperment is a primary concern and breed their dogs to achieve the best temperment. But apparently they are wasting their time because the folks at http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm say that that is not posible.
Re: Should Pit Bulls be banned
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?
I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.
I say dont put down the dogs...........put down there owners 🙂
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Just a few quick thoughts directed to the pit bull lovers of the world.Why does everyone say that Pit Bulls are not aggressive? When Golden Retriever retrieves it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a sighthound takes off after a squirrel or rabbit it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a Shepard is protective of those around it it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. When a Water Spanial swims with amazing skill it is not a suprise because that was what it was bred to do. So why do people deny the very character traits that were bred into pit bulls in their defense?
People say that Pit Bulls are bred to attack other dogs and not humans. That is a bit incorrect. They are bred to be aggressive, relentless, strong and determined. You cannot breed specified targets of aggression into a dog. For example, I used to have an Irish Wolfhound (which is a sight hound), he was a superbly trained dog (as any that size should be) and you know what, he was just as happy to chase a bear, deer, rabbit, coyote, dog or person as he was a wolf. If I allowed him to chase it, he'd chase it. So a pitbull is bred to fight other dogs, it's trained to fight other dogs, if it does not fight anything, it's tendancies for aggression build up andhave to be feleased somewhere.
As for people who say, "other dogs bite too", well, that's true. But most dogs cannot apply the same force behind their bite that a Pit Bull does nor are most other dogs as vicious at the moment of attack and cause as much damage as they can.
Other issues are at hand in this issue as well. Poor training and mishandling of a dog capable of this level of violence is ridiculous, as are the breeding practices that have been occuring to meet demand resulting in inbred populations of Pit Bulls that are quicker to "snap" than other specimens.
You may love the breed of dog, but with that also comes the responsibility of being aware what that dog is capable of and accepting those traits. To say they don't exist is foolish, ignorant and extremely dangerous.
First, you're making the same mistake as most people. You seem to confuse animal aggression with human aggro.
PBs ARE more aggressive to animals, but to humans, they aren't.
Why? When they were first bred for fighting dogs, they were picked to be animal aggressive and totally non human aggro. When the pit master had to break apart the dogs, they made sure they could trust the animal's not to bite.
If they did happen to bite, they were killed. Thus, making it nearly impossible to spread the human agressive gene.
Seriously, stop confusing animal aggression with human aggression. They are totally different.
Originally posted by Arabian Knight
Thus, making it nearly impossible to spread the human agressive gene.
Human aggressive gene? WTF? Do you think that there is actually a gene in animals that defines as to what species of other animals it will and won't be aggresive to?
Pitbulls were bred for aggression, they were then socialized to be aggressive towards other animals and not to people. Now that this animal is no longer used for it's intended purpose (which is a good thing) there is no release for that aggresion (which is a bad thing).
As for my other so-called facts that are way off, please break them down for me.
Re: Should Pit Bulls be banned
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?
I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.
I agree with you but I would add that those people who own an aggressive dog who attacks someone should be treated as though they were the ones who did the attack and be prosecuted onthe extent of the injury. If a person is killed that dog owner should be sentanced to life in prison or worse. I love dogs but every once and awhile I come upon a dog walker (always is a guy) ans his dog that he has to rein in because once it sees me it goes nuts. I'm glad I carry a little knife with me cause if that guy some how loses his grip on that leash and that dog attacks me, it's going to be dog with a hole in it's throat.
I sometimes think what if a child goes up to one of these dogs? I don't even want to think about it..
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Recently there have been several high profile pit bull attacks where people have been killed or seriously injured. Miami and Denver have banned them. San Francisco requires that they be neutered or spayed. I also know Ontario Canada bans them. As does the Netherlands and the UK (I think).Is banning them valid or just a knee jerk reaction?
I say banning them is crap. While you do hear about a few highly publicized incidents 99.999% of Pit Bulls are not dangerous to people. The vast majority are not dangerous to other dogs either (I regularly encounter Pit Bulls when I take my dogs to the dog park and there has never been a problem).
Those pits that are dangerous have been trained to be. To be sure some will argue they were bred to be agressive but so have a number of other breeds. Rottwieliers, Dobermans, German Sheperds, just to name a few, have been bred to be aggressive. It's $%$#@ to single out one breed.I DO think owners of any animal, not just pit bulls, who injure another person, or their pet, should be held accountable.
They're not banned in the GB, atleast not in Scotland or N.Ireland I'm not sure about England and Wales.
Human aggressive gene? WTF? Do you think that there is actually a gene in animals that defines as to what species of other animals it will and won't be aggresive to?
I honestly believe you don't even know what a APBT is. I know you can look at websites and spurt propaganda, but do you honestly know ANYTHING about this subject?
Yes, there is a personality type that is bred into the APBT to prey on other animals, almost always other DOGS. When an owner is bad, they can switch the hardwire in the APBT's brain into seeing humans as prey. But, this is extremely unnatural for an APBT to do.
Why? Because:
They aren't guard dogs, they never have been. They aren't bred to be aggressive to humans or be territorial or even protective of humans. They are made to fight dogs and to be submissive to humans, even intruders(bad thing).
APBT are less human aggressive than most other dogs. Any guard dog/herd dog is more human aggressive.
Stop believing the hype, you sound like a friggin' drug war propagandist.