# Gameness in APBTs



## Bored Collie (Jul 7, 2014)

So, apparently I was on another board,& they seem to promote it. They fight there dogs even though it's illegal. They refer to it as Gameness.

I see it as blood sport. Why are people supporting this sport? Maybe It isn't as bad as I think. But, it sounds horrible. Ha


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Gameness doesn't have to refer to dog fighting. More generally it refers to the dog's willingness to get in there and get the job done and not giving up until it is. 

Dogs that do hog hunting, for example, are referred to as being game or not in terms of how willing they are to take on the hog. I'm sure someone involved could give a more specific idea but that's just my understanding of the term. It's used in dog fighting but it isn't a dog fighting specific term.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

A lot of pit bull enthusiasts practically worship "gameness" :/. Even those who don't fight their dogs. Some say the only way to determine a dog's gameness is to fight it. Anyone who gets a kick out of watching animals fight is worthless scum of the earth, I say. 

For those who don't support fighting but still worship "gameness", admiring a trait that can only be determined by fighting is not going to make the breed's reputation any better. That's what fuels BSL so if they want to contribute to their own favorite breed's problems I guess nobody will be able to stop them.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

What forum was this?


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

Yes I want to know which forum as well.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> A lot of pit bull enthusiasts practically worship "gameness" :/. Even those who don't fight their dogs. Some say the only way to determine a dog's gameness is to fight it. Anyone who gets a kick out of watching animals fight is worthless scum of the earth, I say.
> 
> For those who don't support fighting but still worship "gameness", admiring a trait that can only be determined by fighting is not going to make the breed's reputation any better. That's what fuels BSL so if they want to contribute to their own favorite breed's problems I guess nobody will be able to stop them.


You make it sound like gameness or a pit being is a bad thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull. A pit that is not game is like a border collie that won't herd or s Lab that will not retrieve.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You make it sound like gameness or a pit being is a bad thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull. A pit that is not game is like a border collie that won't herd or s Lab that will not retrieve.


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Exactly, thank you Johnny. Gameness is what gives a pit his spirit which is a big part of why people love the breed so much.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

Sarah~ said:


> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Exactly, thank you Johnny. Gameness is what gives a pit his spirit which is a big part of why people love the breed so much.


Pretty much. To each their own. That's just why some people stick to the breeds they do.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Gameness used to just specify grit in a dog so a working GSD or a working Terrier could be called game,but now it specifies fighting dogs or dogs from fighting bred lines. Whether boar hunting is considered gameness varies from individual to individual. Gameness means a dog that can under go a lot of injury and defeat without giving up. Even a police Malinois that keeps working and going after a bad guy after being shot with a bullet may not be considered game anymore with perhaps the only reason being it's not a Pit and may not be dog aggressive or good at fighting. Now not all backyard or shelter pits have this trait,I've seen my Rott have more "gameness" then some of these dogs,but they can still have some drive and spirit to them none the less. Although it is believed that most game bred dogs would even give up at a point.

It a unpopular opinion but I do see gameness as directly referencing fighting ability,otherwise I wouldn't see the constant bullying and belittling of other working breeds by gameness enthusiasts.
Gameness is also often associated with dog aggression and kind of why they can be so dangerous when they do attack a person,and you have to wonder if it is really needed for owners in cities that do not hunt,fight or do protection work with their dogs. So your pretty much saying a Pit bull is not a Pit bull if they do not fight other animals that can kill them,sense it is like a Border collie that cannot herd. 
Game bred dogs are also often treated more like fighting dogs from the forums and books I've read,chained up 24-7 with the high risk of the yearly deadly kennel fight or ASPCA investigation.

Now for people that cannot test gameness which is pretty much the 95% of Pit owners and breeders they often assume dog aggression equals gameness. It has also limited Pits as working and sporting dogs,sense the dog aggression makes them not very good candidates for most people,and the ones that are used are the ones they can get with high drive yet low dog aggression. So you have to decide is it worth pretending you have fighting dogs and gameness and leaving in the high levels of dog aggression or is this something we need to move on from and stop worshiping? I guess it is up to you guys,if wecould breed dogs like Tret or Wallace or do think we would keep breeding them with zero drive.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

IMO gameness is like a lot of dog traits, it can be turned to good or to bad. For working dogs and dogs sports you definitely want a dog that's game, but if they're not trained or they have a poor disposition that energy and drive can be turned to destructiveness or aggression. People should only get highly "game" dogs if they know what to do with it and are willing to put in the time and effort to keep the dog mentally healthy and focused on appropriate outlets.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You make it sound like gameness or a pit being is a bad thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull. A pit that is not game is like a border collie that won't herd or s Lab that will not retrieve.


 Thank you for that. So true.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

parus said:


> IMO gameness is like a lot of dog traits, it can be turned to good or to bad. For working dogs and dogs sports you definitely want a dog that's game, but if they're not trained or they have a poor disposition that energy and drive can be turned to destructiveness or aggression. People should only get highly "game" dogs if they know what to do with it and are willing to put in the time and effort to keep the dog mentally healthy and focused on appropriate outlets.


 As Foresthund said, according to the pit bull people, a pit bull is only "game" if it is willing to fight to the death. They do not consider working ability or sports ability to be "game". I would consider my old Lab "game" in that she was willing to retrieve to the death (it's not a good trait in a pet dog :/) but the word has been co-opted by the dog fighters and those who admire dog fighters. It doesn't just refer to energy, drive, and grit, but specifically to death-fighting willingness. Check out just about any pit bull forum. Not hard to find, even I found them .


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> As Foresthund said, according to the pit bull people, a pit bull is only "game" if it is willing to fight to the death. They do not consider working ability or sports ability to be "game". I would consider my old Lab "game" in that she was willing to retrieve to the death (it's not a good trait in a pet dog :/) but the word has been co-opted by the dog fighters and those who admire dog fighters. It doesn't just refer to energy, drive, and grit, but specifically to death-fighting willingness. Check out just about any pit bull forum. Not hard to find, even I found them .


 No it does not only mean "fight to the death" it is referencing the dogs choice to "go to" even if it knows it is at great risk. Even if the dog knows it could be injured or even killed. That "gameness" isn't just tested via pitting.... not in my opinion.
I know many game APBT's that have never been fought. Example- a quality catch dog (hog hunting)
When dog men/women are making reference to "game bred lines" they are speaking about dogs coming from dams/sires that have been pitted and proven game by winning matches.
A lot of matching did not end with the death of one of both dogs. A good dog man (subjective I know) *used* to (past tense) be able to test for gameness without any death... without too much gore. I won't elaborate much more then that because this discussion generally raises hackles.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> it is referencing the dogs choice to "go to" even if it knows it is at great risk. Even if the dog knows it could be injured or even killed


. . .that's exactly the same as being "willing to fight to the death". Just different wording. 

It's not a choice for a dog that's been bred to be that way. Admiring that kind of breeding is what makes BSL happen.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> . . .that's exactly the same as being "willing to fight to the death". Just different wording.
> 
> It's not a choice for a dog that's been bred to be that way. Admiring that kind of breeding is what makes BSL happen.


 Not via pitting though. Which is what you are implying. 
No that is not what creates BSL... your ignorance is showing.
So, what DOES create BSL?
1) irresponsible ownership-
Not containing one's animals. 
Not euthanizing animals that are obviously "off". 
Not crating and rotating when animals require it. 
Not supervising vigilantly.
Etc. 
2) the *save them all* mentality 
They do not all need to be saved. 
Not all people should own them (very few actually). 

3) equating animal aggression/dog aggression with human aggression. 

4) sensationalist media 
5) last, but certainly not least 
Crap breeders. All breeders of APBT's or their type [staffy, am bully, mixes] that don't breed for true QUALITY.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Not necessarily fight to the death,sense that is either called deep or dead gameness but to pretty much go close to it. As in fight for up to an hour and still wanting more. Most dogs even the harder breeds do not fight for more than 10 minutes at the most,usually half that. 

If a dog is considered game for hog hunting,specifying catch dogs which I've heard of some non game dogs of random breeds do(such as Aussies,Boxers,Rottweilers,Great Danes and even one standard Poodle) it is usually cases where the dog is badly injured but keeps holding on or dies during hand. For hog hunting from looking at forums their is some argument whether game bred dogs should be used for hog hunting. Sense the dogs may ignore their pack mates when they see a boar but the Pits as well as Jagd Terriers are known for fighting the other team mates if their is no greater prey around. So if they are used they are often released later on once the boar is already surrounded. It is possible to find a game bred dog that is not very dog aggressive,but even from the same litter it is more likely to happen then not. Pit mixes are always a popular mix for hog hunting,less dog aggressive but still great catch dogs and often a better nose or faster.

The gameness does make them harder to handle which causes some of the issues mentioned,but it would help if their popularity goes down and responsible ownership goes up. Act like their more like a Belgian Malinois or Presa Canario not a Golden retriever in bully clothing. Especially if you want to keep these traits as much as possible then perhaps we need to be harsher on who owns and breeds these dogs.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Foresthund said:


> Not necessarily fight to the death,sense that is either called deep or dead gameness but to pretty much go close to it. As in fight for up to an hour and still wanting more. Most dogs even the harder breeds do not fight for more than 10 minutes at the most,usually half that.
> 
> If a dog is considered game for hog hunting,specifying catch dogs which I've heard of some non game dogs of random breeds do(such as Aussies,Boxers,Rottweilers,Great Danes and even one standard Poodle) it is usually cases where the dog is badly injured but keeps holding on or dies during hand. For hog hunting from looking at forums their is some argument whether game bred dogs should be used for hog hunting. Sense the dogs may ignore their pack mates when they see a boar but the Pits as well as Jagd Terriers are known for fighting the other team mates if their is no greater prey around. So if they are used they are often released later on once the boar is already surrounded. It is possible to find a game bred dog that is not very dog aggressive,but even from the same litter it is more likely to happen then not. Pit mixes are always a popular mix for hog hunting,less dog aggressive but still great catch dogs and often a better nose or faster.
> 
> The gameness does make them harder to handle which causes some of the issues mentioned,but it would help if their popularity goes down and responsible ownership goes up. Pretend their more like a Belgian Malinois or Presa Canario not a Golden retriever in bully clothing.


 True. Many old time dogs were considered "game" without having to fight to the death or killing their opponent. 
Risking sounding like glorifying old time dog men (which I'm not attempting to do) ... There is a MASSIVE difference between the way many old timers used to do it and the way someone like Micheal Vick does it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

socorny said:


> Not via pitting though. Which is what you are implying.
> No that is not what creates BSL... your ignorance is showing.
> So, what DOES create BSL?
> 1) irresponsible ownership-
> ...


Ah, you're one of those. I suppose you're on those pit bull forums, pining for the good ol' days, saying nasty things about "pet mommies" (anyone against cruelty to animals), etc. Good to know.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

socorny said:


> True. Many old time dogs were considered "game" without having to fight to the death or killing their opponent.
> Risking sounding like glorifying old time dog men (which I'm not attempting to do) ... There is a MASSIVE difference between the way many old timers used to do it and the way someone like Micheal Vick does it.


Of course if they were stopped before death occurred, that would prevent deaths. The *willingness* is what makes them "game", not how much death they were allowed to follow through with. (i.e. I didn't LET my Lab chase a stick someone threw off a bridge, or retrieve until she dropped dead, but she was willing to)


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Ah, you're one of those. I suppose you're on those pit bull forums, pining for the good ol' days, saying nasty things about "pet mommies" (anyone against cruelty to animals), etc. Good to know.


No. I just speak the truth. 
I don't advocate cruelty to animals.... I'm just giving a history lesson and a *what ACTUALLY causes BSL* lesson.
I don't belong to any pit bull forum, this is the only dog forum I've joined.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Of course if they were stopped before death occurred, that would prevent deaths. The *willingness* is what makes them "game", not how much death they were allowed to follow through with.


 I'm not understanding your point. Are we agreeing? I feel confused lol
What is wrong with the willingness? An ACD is willing to put itself at great risk to herd large ungulates... do you have a problem with that "gameness"?
A Boer Boel is willing to put itself at great risk in the face of an intruding African lion... do you have a problem with it's gameness? 
One can't pick and choose which "gameness" might be displayed in their dog (IF it is truly game).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Probably at this point, yes, LOL. I said that "gameness" is a willingness to fight to the death, you said, no, it's a willingness to "go to" even if it gets them killed, I said that was the same thing. . ..


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

The thing is is that pretty much no dog men or dog fighter wanabe will call a ACD or modern Boerboel game. Perhaps if the ACD clutched onto the bulls nose and wouldn't let go despite being trampled to death and did such regularly they would. But so far they will just laugh at event the tougher and braver breeds if they can't compete in the pit. Go to any Pit forum or youtube comment thread and dare call a GSD,Malinois,ACD,Lab,Border Collie or Rott game and see what you get.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

So, as someone who personally knows some owners of outdoor APBT and responsible care for their dogs, I do want to say that each side has their point but IMHO this thread is filled with generalizations.

Most APBT owners, gamebred or not, have tremendous respect for the history of the breed and how it impacted the traits many of the dogs carry today. However, MOST of them, the responsible, knowledgeable, owners, don't "pine" for the old days. Yes, they discuss it, and particular dogs that carried certain traits they admired, they discuss the odds that dog faced, but again, for the majority, that's it.

I feel like this is a discussion that's always going to pop up but seeing as it almost never results in compromise, why not just drop it.

I had a similar discussion on an APBT forum I'm proud to participate in, where owners are responsible, and I had several excellent replies explaining their attitudes about the breed, and that particular forum has many experienced members that, while blunt, did a good job of explaining things that people on this dog forum say from their perspectives. In that respect, yes, they have a huge issue with "fur mommies" or, better said: well-intentioned people that sometimes go too far. There are many owners with a passion for gamebred APBT or even just shelter mixes that still have DA, or breeders, that keep their dogs outdoors, however are responsible in their setups, feeding, daily exercise, etc, but have been harassed legally because people think "Dog outside/or/chained = neglect!" when it simply wasn't the case.

In terms of DA, DA doesn't cause BSL. There are a LOT of dog-intolerant-dogs out there. It's dog-intolerant-dogs in the hands of irresponsible idiots that cause BSL because they cannot properly contain, exercise, manage, etc, the breed, or shelter mixes. Some of them aren't even DA. Some in urban areas are just very large, high-strung, under-exercised terriers that someone wanted to own because they looked "tough."

Honestly, I agree with that list of what causes BSL.

I'm not a hardcore APBT person like some of those on the other forums, but as an owner I make an effort to educate myself, sometimes firsthand when possible and discuss what's going on politically and breed-wise with other owners, and I've found those points valid.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I didn't say DA causes BSL. The mentality of "my dog could totally kill your dog, isn't that super awesome!" IS a major factor. When even the "responsible" owners of a certain breed have that mentality, you know things aren't going to be getting any better.

I guess I don't see the value in admiring the history of a breed and how it shaped the breed when the history is so evil. Do people discuss how some family lines of some races are possibly stronger/faster/whatever because slave owners engaged in selective breeding? It was such a hurtful thing, even if it resulted in some amazing modern athletes I still feel like it would be frowned upon to admire that kind of thing.

A good cattle dog needs to know when to back off or he/she would be pretty useless to the owner. A dog who is actively trying to get killed is not going to last long. But that's pretty much what dog fighters are trying for, historically and now.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Dog aggression can cause BSL to an extent.
Plenty of people are outraged and now support BSL because their dog was mauled by a Pit. It is also a reason why many are abandoned.

Now to assume that all or most dogs that have been bred to fight creatures as large or larger then them will not so that behavior towards humans is a bit silly.

Border collies as well as other herding dogs will herd cats,dogs,flies,toys and yes even humans,as well as the instinct that makes them chase and circle sheep can turn deadly towards them if not controlled early on.

Working terriers can easily become dog aggressive and are known to do poorly with children.

Sighthounds will chase paper bags and pretty much anything that moves.

Dogs used for protection,as in fight another being larger than them are known to have a bit of dog aggressive and not all are trustworthy with children.

Dogs used to herd cattle can be used for protection for similar reasons.

So it is not surprising fighting dogs have become popular as protection breeds often for their gameness and even non trained ones can show human and territorial aggression. Not all DA dogs are HA,but it can move over to it. Many past fighting dogs where man biters that where never euthanized because once their proven fighters you cant expect some dog fighter to lose money and prestige by culling them.
Humans are not some magical alpha being which even the most ferocious dogs will submit to unless trained by another magical being otherwise.

Also a lot of the supposedly DA dogs out there just so barrier or fear aggression often from poor socialization,these types of dogs when loose tend to harmless unless harassed. High levels of DA is not desired in working dogs and even possibly why dogs like Labs became so popular in many fields. Many protection breeds will not tolerate a dog challenging them but that is different then a dog so aggressive they break into someone else's house to attack their dogs which has happened a few times with pits.

Also I`m not really against outdoor dogs if taken care of and payed attention to,but I feel like a lot of these game bred dogs are not really treated like pets and more yard ornaments. I also dislike the furmommy kind of stuff and find fighting dog history fascinating so I do side with them on some of the topics.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

. . .what is "furmommy kind of stuff"?


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I wouldn't so much say, at least not for all of them, and the small handful that I know, that it was the fighting and injuries in themselves that they admired. When I jumped into a deeper discussion with them, IDK if it makes sense the way I describe it, but more an appreciation of the good traits that resulted, how it shaped them into reliable, all-purpose dogs that were able to do dirty tasks such as performing as catch-dogs, etc.

It actually just reminded me of a point someone made to me the other day. They were saying that there were many winning dogs that weren't DA outside of those sporting situations and actually lived happily with other animals, or were able to tolerate them. Not backing down had little to do with the dog's actual animal-aggression. Many view DA as an ugly attempt to revive and glorify "gameness" in modern dogs because some people, especially in the ghetto, revere it as "wow look how much my dog wants to get yours!" But again, many dogs were game without being DA.

Now, I personally do disagree with many of the stuck-in-the-old-days members of one particular forum because their attitude to me is concerning and gross. The we-can't-move-on-it-can-only-be-proven-in-a-bloody-unneccesary-fight people. I for one, I guess can appreciate what the breed truly is, but I certainly don't condone what went into its history. Nope. No way. It frustrates me that there are people so stuck in that.

Hog-hunting on the other hand, I can appreciate that and I think those are the gamest dogs. They can face up to a huge wild boar with tusks and manage it and take it down, and another reason I even support it is because hunting is such an ancient partnership and many people where they partake (I know definitely Texas and the general south), have that as their livelihood and it provides them with food. So I can admire those dogs, and I think they're very game and they're definitely doing a job. I appreciate them. But that's about it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> As Foresthund said, according to the pit bull people, a pit bull is only "game" if it is willing to fight to the death. They do not consider working ability or sports ability to be "game". I would consider my old Lab "game" in that she was willing to retrieve to the death (it's not a good trait in a pet dog :/) but the word has been co-opted by the dog fighters and those who admire dog fighters. It doesn't just refer to energy, drive, and grit, but specifically to death-fighting willingness. Check out just about any pit bull forum. Not hard to find, even I found them .


 You know ZERO about what you are talking about. I SERIOUSLY doubt you know any pit bull people. Not any serious ones anyway...
Where did you come across this statement?


> according to the pit bull people, a pit bull is only "game" if it is willing to fight to the death.


 Did you read it somewhere? If a person told you this, I have news for you, the person that told it to you doesn't know any more than you do. 

Here is your entire problem.... 


> Check out just about any pit bull forum. Not hard to find, even I found them .


Anyone that is talking about game dogs and gameness on a forum and describes it as you have, knows nothing about what gameness is. And probably never will. Pit guys, terriers guys, etc DO NOT TALK on public forums. You are believing what some young punks that got a pit bull and think they are tough and read a half a chapter in some book about the history of dog fighting, made up in their own little minds. 

If on the OFF chance that you actually do know a serious pit bull person, they do not tell you anything about their dogs. I am not just talking about fighters either. I am talking about many if not most of those that believe in breeding to the old standard. It is entirely possible, that if you did know a real pit bull person, you would be unaware that they even have dogs. They are tight lipped and do NOT talk to outsiders. 

These punks talking crap about their game dogs on facebook, forums, chat rooms, etc. Do not KNOW SQUAT. They are wanna be punks that hope their crap talk makes them look tough or cool. Real Pit people do not talk about their dogs on open forums for eyes to see. It just does not happen. 



> They do not consider working ability or sports ability to be "game". I would consider my old Lab "game" in that she was willing to retrieve to the death (it's not a good trait in a pet dog :/)


Well working ability and sports ability is NOT game. And your Lab was NOT game. There is NO such thing as a game Lab. 

but the word has been co-opted by the dog fighters and those who admire dog fighters. 



> but the word has been co-opted by the dog fighters and those who admire dog fighters.


The word was not co opted by anyone. For all anyone knows the pit people in the early years of the breed could have well coined the term in the back rooms of blue collar pubs and in Irish Mining Camps. 

The word "game" is a terrier term. If it is using with any breed other than a working terrier, it is being used incorrectly. 
You do not use it on sporting dogs, herding dogs, protection dogs etc. If anyone does, they co opted the word as you say and are using it in correctly. 

Very simply.... The DEFINITION of game. 

GAME - The willingness to remain eager in the face of adversity and or significant injury. Specifically when facing an adversary or quarry. 

That is it NOTHING MORE.... And the term and being game... IS about YOUR dog surviving and being able to work another day. It is not and never has been about killing. Even the Pit Bull people that have fought in the past or fight now, UNDERSTAND this.....

I will explain.... Think of the word game... Think of it as a HUNTER would think of it? Game is another word for animal you are hunting. We can all agree on this correct? Now think of game animals in England. Only the wealthy and royalty hunted the large animals. The stag, deer, boar etc. The common man, the men who developed the terrier breeds, owned the terrier breeds. They were relegated to hunting the smaller animals. Many of them considered vermin. Badgers, foxes, weasels. etc. Many of them would hole up in a burrow.... The terrier (Terra means earth or go to earth hence terrier hence those are the only breeds that "game" applies to) would go in the den, burrow, etc and DRIVE them out. Yes at times it turned into a fight. But also the dog often drove the game out to the hunter. 

So knowing what we know above...... A dog goes in the hole after game. It gets tough down there... IF that dog quits.... He dies...
A game dog Survives to hunt again. So of course men wanted "GAME" dogs. All it means is a dog that will not give up and allow himself to be killed. A game dog may get banged up now and then but he survives and hunts with his owner for many years. A lesser dog dies quickly and may likely die the first time he goes down a hole. 

Game has NOTHING to dog with killing.. A dog does not have to kill to prove that it is GAME. The fact that anyone says that or even worse believes that is utterly ridiculous. 
For example... IF a person took two game dogs that did not like each other and were dog aggressive (and dog aggressive is more of a terrier trait than simply a Pit Bull Trait), put them in an enclosed area and left them to their own devices, sooner or later one of them will kill the other one. The type of terrier does not matter. Could be a couple of Jack Russell ( And working line Jack Russells and Patterdales are some of the MOST dog aggressive dogs I have ever met.) Could be Pits, could be Kerry Blues, could be Irish Terriers, etc. BOTH dogs are game. But one still dies. What does that prove? Is the winner the Game dog? I the living dog more game than the dead dog? NO.... All it means is one dog was stronger than the other. Heck the winner could be not game at all. Killing does not have anything to dog with gameness. And Gameness does not and never has had ANYTHING to do with killing. The notion itself is ludicrous. 

Game and a dog being game has and always will be about the dog surviving to work another day. 
Anyone that thinks differently or uses the term differently is wrong... End of story.....

And going back to co opting words...
Grit, Pluck, tenacity, gumption, etc etc are NOT the same as game. 

Grit - is used only with Herding dogs. And specifically ONLY the herding dogs that were bred and are capable of working rough dangerous stock. 

Pluck - is ONLY used with hounds and curs. And again.. Specifically only with dogs working tough dangerous game. The greatest beagle in the world chasing the fasted rabbit in the world does NOT have pluck. 

The only breeds that can have both PLUCK and GRIT are the curs. Really mostly Catahoulas and Black Mouth Curs and some of the lesser known breeds such as the Florida Cur, Arcadia Cur, etc. Because both breeds can be fine herding dogs all week and great hunting dogs on the weekend. 

And specifically to you Willow... Taking what you read, choosing to believe it even though is makes ZERO sense, and then reposting it on another forum only furthers the problem. This is a public forum... Some wanna be tough guy punk that just bought a dog he thinks is a pit from some guy a mile away and wants to prove he is a tough guy and has a bad ass dog... Could be surfing around one what game is... Because he heard one of his "boys" use the word about his dog... Then boom Google pops up your post... He like you... Chooses to believe it... And he is itching to prove how tough he is vicariously through his dog... So he calls up this guy he knows that has a dog.... Next thing you know... Tomorrow afternoon there is an impromptu dog fight in some side yard or alley in West Tampa, East St Louis, Dallas, Atlanta... The world is big and the net is bigger. Maybe all of them. And if this hypothetical punk's dog turn tail and runs? He borrows his buddies piece of crap High Point 9mm that his buddy bought of a trunk of some car behind the mini mart and puts a bullet in his dog's head. Because after all. You cannot be tough with a whimpy dog that does not want to fight? Right? So your only option is to pop a cap in his head? Right? 

Game dogs and gameness is a DANGEROUS subject to be talking about on an open forum... Dangerous for dogs. Dangerous for people as well. The ONLY reason I am talking about it, is maybe... Somebody surfing the net will read my words and a light will come on in their head.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Foresthund said:


> The thing is is that pretty much no dog men or dog fighter wanabe will call a ACD or modern Boerboel game. Perhaps if the ACD clutched onto the bulls nose and wouldn't let go despite being trampled to death and did such regularly they would. But so far they will just laugh at event the tougher and braver breeds if they can't compete in the pit. Go to any Pit forum or youtube comment thread and dare call a GSD,Malinois,ACD,Lab,Border Collie or Rott game and see what you get.


ACDs are NEVER game... And ACD that will head and grip a bull by the nose has GRIT! It is different. And and ACD with GRIT will know when it is time to let go and get out of there.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well unfortunately the punks talking crap are who are the most visible. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that when JQP sees people on public forums admiring "game" that maybe is going to negatively affect public opinion/BSL.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> And if this hypothetical punk's dog turn tail and runs? He borrows his buddies piece of crap High Point 9mm that his buddy bought of a trunk of some car behind the mini mart and puts a bullet in his dog's head. Because after all. You cannot be tough with a whimpy dog that does not want to fight? Right? So your only option is to pop a cap in his head? Right?


. . .or he got the idea from reading old books about "dogmen" "culling" "curs". 

Of course people who are super serious about something don't talk about illegal things in public or online. That's a given. I'm talking about the predominant culture, not specialists specializing.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> . . .or he got the idea from reading old books about "dogmen" "culling" "curs".
> 
> Of course people who are super serious about something don't talk about illegal things in public or online. That's a given. I'm talking about the predominant culture, not specialists specializing.



NOTHING in the old books describe gameness as you did... 

And all you are doing is sending misinformation down the road....-

Culling dogs has NOTHING to do with the definition of gameness...


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You know ZERO about what you are talking about. I SERIOUSLY doubt you know any pit bull people. Not any serious ones anyway...
> Where did you come across this statement? Did you read it somewhere? If a person told you this, I have news for you, the person that told it to you doesn't know any more than you do.
> 
> Here is your entire problem....
> ...


I appreciate the elaboration johnnybandit.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> . . .or he got the idea from reading old books about "dogmen" "culling" "curs".
> 
> Of course people who are super serious about something don't talk about illegal things in public or online. That's a given. I'm talking about the predominant culture, not specialists specializing.


Actually I spoke to soon.. .I get your point.. MAYBE but I doubt he read that far...


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Well unfortunately the punks talking crap are who are the most visible. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that when JQP sees people on public forums admiring "game" that maybe is going to negatively affect public opinion/BSL.


This! (too short)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Well unfortunately the punks talking crap are who are the most visible. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that when JQP sees people on public forums admiring "game" that maybe is going to negatively affect public opinion/BSL.


Does not mean they are correct... There are people right now running around screaming about how aweful Spielberg is because he kills animals. 

The animal he is posing with is a Dinosaur.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> This! (too short)




People believe too much of what they read...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Correct, incorrect. Hardly matters to the fallout.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Correct, incorrect. Hardly matters to the fallout.


All I am saying is people read something one time and pass it on as gospel. Same thing happens with medical information.


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> People believe too much of what they read...


It isn't believing...it is agreeing. I don't believe most of what I read that you post....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

So Cavalier said:


> It isn't believing...it is agreeing. I don't believe most of what I read that you post....


LOL.... Makes no difference to me. I actually find your statement amusing. 


Yet you agree with a post that says because misinformation is all over the internet, people that is what people believe...

The irony is humorous...


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

People just don't want *that messy history*. Sometimes that is what makes a breed. Accept it and move on... pretending like it never happened does nobody any favours.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

socorny said:


> People just don't want *that messy history*. Sometimes that is what makes a breed. Accept it and move on... pretending like it never happened does nobody any favours.


 Neither does glorifying it and/or acting like it's normal/acceptable/desirable for the future of the breed. 

So I was curious and I Googled "what is gameness in a pit bull". . .


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Neither does glorifying it and/or acting like it's normal/acceptable/desirable for the future of the breed.
> 
> So I was curious and I Googled "what is gameness in a pit bull". . .


 I've never glorified it. Nor has anyone else on this thread. 
Since when does mentioning it equal glorification?


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

I accept their history,& I'm not ashamed of it. That is that. I'm not ashamed because it's what makes the breed. I like seeing Gameness, & Tenacity,& other qualities. That is what APBTs should be bred for.I don't support the fight, but, I support the breed,& it's history.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JazzyTheSiberian said:


> I accept their history,& I'm not ashamed of it. That is that. I'm not ashamed because it's what makes the breed. I like seeing Gameness, & Tenacity,& other qualities. That is what APBTs should be bred for that. I don't support the fight, but, I support the breed,& it's history.


They're pretty darn cool dogs!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JazzyTheSiberian said:


> I accept their history,& I'm not ashamed of it. That is that. I'm not ashamed because it's what makes the breed. I like seeing Gameness, & Tenacity,& other qualities. That is what APBTs should be bred for.I don't support the fight, but, I support the breed,& it's history.


When you've got a lot of people (like this guy: http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqfaq.html#q7 --on the first page of my Google results!) saying that the only way to maintain gameness is by fighting your breeding dogs, well. I'm not even sure what to say really.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> When you've got a lot of people (like this guy: http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqfaq.html#q7 --on the first page of my Google results!) saying that the only way to maintain gameness is by fighting your breeding dogs, well. I'm not even sure what to say really.


That guy is an idiot. Do you generally believe everything you google?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't believe anything he said. But that's not the first time I've seen that sentiment expressed. Would you like me to count how many times I can find it in pit bull sites and forums?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

socorny said:


> That guy is an idiot. Do you generally believe everything you google?


Whether anyone here thinks he's an idiot or what Willowy believes isn't the point she's trying to make at all, so let me spell it out: That's also what J&JQP see (and probably do believe) when they google it.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I'd like to see a new twist, since this pops up on a fair amount of dog forums.

How can the dog community rectify the problem? Not just with irresponsible handlers participating in illegal activities, but also dealing with misconceptions dealt by rescues and people who over-humanize the dogs?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> also dealing with misconceptions dealt by rescues and people who over-humanize the dogs?


I guess before I can answer, I have to know what misconceptions are going around and what the symptoms are of "over-humanizing".


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> That guy is an idiot. Do you generally believe everything you google?


Do you not believe that some pit owners feel this way?


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I guess before I can answer, I have to know what misconceptions are going around and what the symptoms are of "over-humanizing".


Generally the most harmful misconception I've heard going around is the "my sweet baby pibble would never hurt a fly!" (real quote ) and I know most people mean that they aren't HA, but I've also heard it in reference to animal aggression but a handful of owners who've been misled by some shelters and rescues to believe that bull breeds can coexist with any other household animal, in order to get them out of shelters and rescues faster.

It's possible, but at the same time, it's harmful because people will leave one or two dogs of a type susceptible to DA or low tolerance of rude behavior by other dogs unsupervised, take them to dog parks, etc, thinking there's no chance their dog will ever be DA, or they'll assume their bull breed type dog won't experience high prey drive or want to chase or hurt cats. I know most shelter dogs are watered-down mixes, but I've seen some be misled or go into ownership with that mindset only to end up in some very tragic, awful situations.

I don't blame some of them, but others ignore the possibility, and I'd like to see that problem solved. It's great to see them adopted to good homes, but if we want the breed or mixes to be shown in a positive light, they should also have rescues, shelters, and owners that recognize that aspect of them so that there aren't situations that could have been prevented. I usually think of that first when I think of irresponsible owners because to me it seems to be more in the public eye, as "average" (?) owners I suppose.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

A lot of people do that with all breeds . I had a DA Lab, so I think all dog owners should be aware of the possibility of DA or small-animal predation. How to get people to understand that, with pit bulls specifically and all dogs in general, I don't know :/.

I don't know what the "dog community" can do about the whole pit bull problem. It's something so ingrained in American culture that it would be very difficult. It would be nice if the breed enthusiasts and especially those who consider themselves responsible dog owners would completely condemn dog fighting instead of being, at best, a bit wishy-washy about it, at worst tacitly supportive, because it's "their breed's history!", but human nature being what it is, I doubt that will happen. 

I'm kinda pessimistic on the subject.
.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I always feel kind of trapped in the middle.

Sometimes I understand what pit bull people are saying about appreciating their breed but most of the communities I talk to or try to partake in are so...Idk, very stubborn, blunt, and yeah a lot of them glorify the old days and it leaves me with a horrible taste in my mouth. Not to mention I can't stand the whole "my breed is a special snowflake! mine mine mine stay out!" attitude. And then some people get pointed when I don't agree with them. Some get very nasty with a "chump go back to your curs" attitude. What does that even mean? They rant about "furmommies" but they're just as bad acting like they're on a high horse and if you don't agree apparently you suddenly aren't suitable at all for a bull-breed.

I've pretty much given up on talking to most bull-breed owners  It's like a lot seem to be between two extremes and it's hard to communicate with them. It makes me rather sad sometimes because they're pretty awesome dogs but the dog community in general has ignorant people, and then you get to the breed-specific community and I'm wondering to myself if it'll ever be at least a little leveled out.

I once started a discussion one of those places about not understanding how people who claimed to invest in the welfare of the breed were openly condoning dog fighting in that very same community and a few times pretty much got the equivalent of "shove off" and what have you.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

sassafras said:


> Whether anyone here thinks he's an idiot or what Willowy believes isn't the point she's trying to make at all, so let me spell it out: That's also what J&JQP see (and probably do believe) when they google it.


The general public will believe what they want. Yes. How does that disprove reality? You can't change stupid... I don't even try anymore. You CAN however (and let me spell this out for you) attempt to change ignorance!
Your dog is part bully, correct? Possible. You can't deny that part of your dog's history any more then you can deny Alaskan husky... even if that past is "dirty".



So Cavalier said:


> Do you not believe that some pit owners feel this way?


I'm pretty sure that why I stated "most people shouldn't own APBT's or similar breeds".


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Melle said:


> I'd like to see a new twist, since this pops up on a fair amount of dog forums.
> 
> How can the dog community rectify the problem? Not just with irresponsible handlers participating in illegal activities, but also dealing with misconceptions dealt by rescues and people who over-humanize the dogs?


 No one is going to stop anthropomorphizing dogs. Ever. I see it on an every day constant basis. It makes me throw up in my mouth a bit but it won't change. Ever. Did I mention that it will never, ever, not in a million years change?
Darwin's law and all that...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Melle said:


> I'd like to see a new twist, since this pops up on a fair amount of dog forums.
> 
> How can the dog community rectify the problem? Not just with irresponsible handlers participating in illegal activities, but also dealing with misconceptions dealt by rescues and people who over-humanize the dogs?



To a degree with education...But a larger scale.... Nothing...


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

I agree, Johnny. I try to educate when I can, other than that not much I can do.

I don't support dog fighting in any way and I don't see how accepting the history of the breed is supporting it.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

socorny said:


> No one is going to stop anthropomorphizing dogs. Ever. I see it on an every day constant basis. *It makes me throw up in my mouth a bit* but it won't change. Ever. Did I mention that it will never, ever, not in a million years change?
> Darwin's law and all that...


how? it doesnt remotely affect you when i humanise my dog for my own fun. that is a really damn rude thing to say.


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

Sarah~ said:


> I
> 
> I don't support dog fighting in any way and I don't see how accepting the history of the breed is supporting it.


Neither do I. Supporting the history of the breed, is different then supporting the act of dog fighting. I support Gameness, but not the match. I don't see how one could promote the act of dogfighting.But, I'm still young,& I'm a huge dog advocate,& lover & just can't understand something's in the dog world.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But what is "supporting" the history? Obviously, it happened and we can't pretend it didn't. A lot of history is pretty nasty. We can't deny slavery or the holocaust or the systematic abuse of women or any of the other awful things that have happened. But talking about any of those things in a positive light is pretty well reserved for a special kind of terrible person. And since bullbaiting/dogfighting is how "gameness" was developed, there really isn't any way to worship gameness without speaking about those things in a positive light. 

But I guess there are some people who collect and share serial killers' stats. Sick.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm kind of with Willowy...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

socorny said:


> The general public will believe what they want. Yes. How does that disprove reality? You can't change stupid... I don't even try anymore. You CAN however (and let me spell this out for you) attempt to change ignorance!


It doesn't change reality, nor did I say it would. The original point that willowy was trying to make was that the attitude glorifying gameness could conceivably contribute to BSL. That was challenged. Then I made the point that if this is what the general public is seeing, then yes I do think it could contribute to BSL. 

And trust me, these hardcore online APBT people are _crazypants_ about all sorts of things and they absolutely do not listen to opposing viewpoints. They argue about everything and seem especially obsessed about if you don't have a pedigree, your dog isn't any bully breed or a mix thereof and you are incredibly stupid and probably shouldn't own dogs. I sometimes jokingly call Pip a "hairy pit bull" after a dude we encountered on a walk called him that once. I made the mistake of calling him that in a FB dog group once and was immediately descended upon by squadrons of these people calling me every name imaginable including accusations of trolling. 

Get my point, now? _These are NOT the people you want the public seeing representing your breed._ You and everyone who loves this breed SHOULD care very deeply about what the general public sees and believes even if it is wrong because _whether it is true or not it could affect you and your dogs_. 




> Your dog is part bully, correct? Possible. You can't deny that part of your dog's history any more then you can deny Alaskan husky... even if that past is "dirty".


Well, as he's 95# I doubt very much he has APBT in him, although AB is suspected. 

In any case, I'm not telling anyone to deny any history. I'm saying that if the general public has a perception that modern pit bull owners are glorifying gameness and condoning fighting to test it, that is a major PR problem that could conceivably contribute to BSL. You're having a different discussion with me than I'm having with you, I think. I get that the public is wrong. But if people who are right don't talk to anyone, then wrong becomes right in people's minds. And it's the public who writes angry letters to their legislators.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> And since bullbaiting/dogfighting is how "gameness" was developed, there really isn't any way to worship gameness without speaking about those things in a positive light.


. Again you you are completely off the mark and incorrect. 

When fighting dogs in pits began to be common those that were breeding dogs for the pit added the specific terriers they did because they were game dogs. 

"Gameness" as you say, was not developed for pit fighting or bull baiting. It was already there. The fighters simply saw it as a quality they needed and used it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK . You might want to tell people who actually own pit bulls that, because I could find that exact statement in just about any pit bull website/book/forum available.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

BSL happens because of sensationalized news stories about dog attacks. The term pit bull is often used. Because like other words such as "assault rifle" "terrorist" etc are catch words the media uses to attract readers. People are in love with monsters. Love to have something planted in their little heads to fear. And they love to read about their monsters. 

That is why bsl happens. John and Mary Q Public do not make a habit of trolling pit bull forums or pit bull sites reading about the breed. They know all they want to know about pit bulls from media articles. That they have 1200 psi jaw strength, the strength of ten normal dogs, and locking jaws. If you asked 100 random people what a game dog was, you would get a bunch of blank stares and a bunch of guesses about a video game


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> OK . You might want to tell people who actually own pit bulls that, because I could find that exact statement in just about any pit bull website/book/forum available.


. Does not mean it is correct.

And the websites and forums...... Maybe. But books? I would like to know the titles. I doubt even the ole glorifier himself, Richard F Stratton wrote such a silly statement in any of his six or seven books on the breed. And he wrote some absurd stuff.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

When the only information available about a breed is (apparently) misinformation, that's when you know you have a problem in that breed. 

Yeah, I know I've read that in a book, I'll see if I can find something. Some of those old books were way worse than the internet .


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> When the only information available about a breed is (apparently) misinformation, that's when you know you have a problem in that breed.
> 
> Yeah, I know I've read that in a book, I'll see if I can find something. Some of those old books were way worse than the internet .


The thing is. That is not the only in formation. And how many books on pit bulls have you read? All this time and I never notice you were such a fan of the breed. I would have never imagined you were so well read.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I was a weird kid. I read constantly. I read every single dog book in the library when I was about 15. It's been a while, granted, but I also remember what I read. 

Maybe you can try to find a website with accurate information and post it here?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> When the only information available about a breed is (apparently) misinformation, that's when you know you have a problem in that breed.
> 
> Yeah,


 After I read this statement I did a few Google searches."information on pit bulls" characteristics of pit bulls" etc. It is not particularly easy to even find the word game in what comes up. 

Makes the quoted statement all the more humorous 


Now if you use the word game in your search stuff does come up


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

To my understanding pitting was to test game, not how gameness was created..?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

QUOTE=Willowy;3298386]I was a weird kid. I read constantly. I read every single dog book in the library when I was about 15. It's been a while, granted, but I also remember what I read. 

Maybe you can try to find a website with accurate information and post it here?[/QUOTE]
It is not hard to find at least fair information. I googled definition of a game out bull. 
Second on the page http://whitney05.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-a-Game-Pit-Bull
Then http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_(dog)

And thenhttp://www.game-bred.com/game-bred.htm

I do not necessarily agree word for word but is not bad stuff


Then Diane jessup's page pops up first. As normal for her there is some fair info but she goes off in her own little adventure. There was were a couple of sites with poor information on the first page then a couple of urban dictionary pages and something about the singer. 

So you statement about only bad information being out there is incorrect.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Sarah~ said:


> To my understanding pitting was to test game, not how gameness was created..?


Yes, but if you use the results as criteria in your breeding program, that's how you create/solidify a breed trait. Like, you can say that genetic testing is used to eliminate a certain disease. Well, testing doesn't eliminate anything. But using the results to inform your breeding choices will.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

i didnt look at the rest but wikipedia isnt heloing your case at all... the fighting dog section is the only one that mentions pits as far as i can tell and it literally opens with saying that gameness is a dogs willingness to fight despite dehydration, injury, exhaustion etc. not something i think todays dogs need or should have.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It is not hard to find at least fair information. I googled definition of a game out bull.
> Second on the page http://whitney05.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-a-Game-Pit-Bull
> Then http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_(dog)
> 
> ...


 Um. Those are the sites I was getting my info from.

First one: "Most people misconstrue the term as representing the dog's courage, fight ability, or endurance in the pit, but it is the never quit attitude and fight-to-the-death personality."

Wikipedia page is general info, not much use.

And, um, Diane Jessup's page talking about how its a shame that modern dog fighters don't have "compassionate" dogmen helping them learn how to fight their dogs properly. And how stupid it is to make dog fighting a felony. Yeah, that's some quality stuff right there.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Kayota said:


> i didnt look at the rest but wikipedia isnt heloing your case at all... the fighting dog section is the only one that mentions pits as far as i can tell and it literally opens with saying that gameness is a dogs willingness to fight despite dehydration, injury, exhaustion etc. not something i think todays dogs need or should have.


 This is the correct link 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_(dog)

I am on my tablet and cannot,paste for crapp


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Here Johnny, your link didn't quite work, I added the missing bracket for you. 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_(dog)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Um. Those are the sites I was getting my info from.
> 
> First one: "Most people misconstrue the term as representing the dog's courage, fight ability, or endurance in the pit, but it is the never quit attitude and fight-to-the-death personality."
> 
> ...


Do understand what misconstrue means?

And I corrected the Wikipedia link. 

Like I said about Diane. She goes off on her own little adventure.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I do understand what misconstrue means. Perhaps you aren't reading it correctly. She says it IS the fight-to-the-death personality.

"Most people misconstrue the term as representing the dog's courage, fight ability, or endurance in the pit, (meaning this is not what it is)

but it *is* the never quit attitude and fight-to-the-death personality." (Meaning this is what she says it is)

If these are the examples you have of accurate and useful information, since those are where I was getting my info anyway, I'll just stand by my statements.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> but it is the never quit attitude and fight-to-the-death personality .


. Go back and read my definition of game and then tell me how this statement does not apply. And you obviously missed the first couple of sentences of her third paragraph.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I do understand what misconstrue means. Perhaps you aren't reading it correctly. She says it IS the fight-to-the-death personality.
> 
> "Most people misconstrue the term as representing the dog's courage, fight ability, or endurance in the pit, (meaning this is not what it is)
> 
> ...



I understood it well. You are good at misconstruing things.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK, what's the argument then? I guess it was socorny who said it wasn't a "willingness to fight to the death".

If you're talking about when I said "gameness was developed in the bull/dog pit", I'm pretty sure that's on Diane Jessup's site. . .

Wow, reading more. Um, yeah, I think I know why BSL is a thing. I'm not blaming the media.

If the FBI looks at my search history they're going to put me on a watchlist .


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well... good luck with changing public perception while that stuff is so visible, I guess. At least you can sleep soundly on a big pile of being right?


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Well... good luck with changing public perception while that stuff is so visible, I guess. At least you can sleep soundly on a big pile of being right?


who is this aimed at?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> OK, what's the argument then? I guess it was socorny who said it wasn't a "willingness to fight to the death".
> 
> .


This is not an argument. It is a discussion or a debate. Though you are difficult to debate with because you are all over the place. Sometimes you change your point of view several times in a single discussion. 

I will address this quickly.


> Wow, reading more. Um, yeah, I think I know why BSL is a thing. I'm not blaming the media.


Think what you want. But if you do not think the fuel is fired by the media, you would be WRONG. It is well documented that the media regularly and repeatedly...... Over sensationalizes, over reports, purposely misidentifies the breed involved, etc dog bite stories.. They are directly responsible for creating hysteria and misinformation. Sports Illustrated started the pit bull craze in the media in 1987... It was all down hill from there. To illustrate. 









They admitted it 20 years later in this article.









What you do not get.... 
Is that it is NOT about and never has been about


> a "willingness to fight to the death".


It is about.


> GAME - The willingness to remain eager in the face of adversity and or significant injury. Specifically when facing an adversary or quarry.


And here is where you get lost... In hunting situations in which terriers are used... Sometimes it becomes life or death for the dog. 
That is where such statements come from. But it is not about fighting to the death. If you pit two good dogs against each other and do not intervene, one is going to kill the other. But that is not about being game. No does it prove which dog is game or which dogs is more game. Neither might not be game or they may both be game. But the fight does not prove they are or are not. All it proves is one dog had an advantage that may or may not be apparent that allowed him to defeat the other dog.


As I said in a previous post... Being game is about living not dying. And I will give an example. 
If you are out hunting hogs with your dogs. Your bay dogs are running a hog. You as most people do, have your catch dog, most often a pit, leashed and keep him or her with you, following behind the bay dogs. So the bay dogs get a hog bayed up and you and the catch dog get caught up to them. So you loose your catch dog, he runs in and grabs the hog. What normally happens is that you follow in right behind the dog and either dispatch it or flip it and tie it up. Sometimes what happens, not that often but sometimes. Is that about the time you let your catch dog loose, the hog breaks the bay and starts running off. Your catch dog is going after the hog. So now you have your bay dogs and your catch dog chasing the hog. Eventually they bay the hog again and your catch dog runs in and catches. But now you may be as much as a half mile behind the dogs. NOW you are not right there to back up your 45 pound dog that is taking on a MUCH larger hog. Assuming it is a boar, of decent size, and has tusks. (by decent I mean anything mature, 130# and up. And most boars that size have tusks.).... In that situation it can be as black and white, if your dog keeps at it, he lives..... He gets scared, backs out of the fight, gets exhausted and quits, etc... He DIES! It may take you 15 or 20 minutes to catch up to your dog. He has to hang on. If the dog is latched on to the hogs shoulder or the side of its head, there is little it can do to the dog. It WILL twist and turn, spin etc. But it cannot use its tusks on the dog. It also may try to rub the dog off against a tree, palmettos, etc. It may even drop and roll on top of the dog. The dog may get dinged up some. But not significantly injured. As long as he hangs on and hangs in there. The second that dog lets go, that hog will spin and open the dog up. 

And beyond that... A game dog will keep you in one piece as well. Catching hogs with a dog is a team thing. the dog and you are catching that hog. You try to get in there quick to back up the dog. But the dog has to back you up at well. If a dog lets go or quits on you when you are close, you can be in REAL trouble. 

You get obsessed with the fight to the death thing. But though some attempt to use it to describe gameness. A willingness to fight to the death in some situations is not a game thing, not a terrier thing either. It is not even a dog thing. It is a living animal thing. Many if not most animals will if faced with the choice of dying or fighting, are GOING TO FIGHT until their last breath passes their lips. And not just a fight in a literal sense. Ever known a person with terminal cancer that lived well past when they should have? No matter how sick they get.. They keep fighting. 

And a good many of living things will WILLINGLY step into a life or death situation and fight. Humans do it all the time. We see it every day. Both in a literal and non literal sense. A person that sees a woman or a child being abducted and jumps in to stop it. A firefighter rushing into a building engulfed with flames to save or attempt to save someone. 

Fighting to the death is a most basic instinct common among living animals. 
That guy that stopped the abduction, that firefighter are admired for their willingness to fight and keep fighting facing death. Hailed as heroes. And even using your word.... "Glorified"
Same thing happens with dogs that risk death to protect their owners. IF a dog of any breed is out in his backyard with his owners child. All of a sudden an armed sociopath comes over the fence intending to take the child. The dog steps in and fights the intruder. If the dog wins... He will be praised as a hero and admired as much as the firefighter. His feats are likely to be more well publicized than the fireman's. People love happy dog stories. And if the dog or the fireman dies trying? Both are still honored admired and because they gave their lives, will likely be eulogized for years. 

So, if a firefighter is willing to fight to the death and a dog saving his owner's child are heroes and praised for their willingness to fight to the death. 
How come by the looks of it, it is a bad thing if a game dog is willing to fight to the death?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

> Well... good luck with changing public perception while that stuff is so visible, I guess. At least you can sleep soundly on a big pile of being right?





Kayota said:


> who is this aimed at?


LOL probably me... 

That is cool. I sleep well. Better than ever actually recently. My surgery and losing weight has helped me loads. 

I also think saying the stuff is so visible is an overstatement... It is there. But someone has to go looking for it....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> So, if a firefighter is willing to fight to the death and a dog saving his owner's child are heroes and praised for their willingness to fight to the death.
> How come by the looks of it, it is a bad thing if a game dog is willing to fight to the death?


Because the cause is far more noble than entertaining a pack of sadistic jerks. I'm not even sure how anyone can look at the descriptions of a "game dog" (keeps fighting even after breaking all legs and being disemboweled, etc.) and not feel sick at what humans do to animals. How anyone can think that's even remotely admirable makes me ill. 



> It is there. But someone has to go looking for it....


Yeha, by Googling "information about pit bulls". Which I'm pretty sure any 8-year-old could do :/.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> Yeha, by Googling "information about pit bulls". Which I'm pretty sure any 8-year-old could do :/.


Actually Willowy, I just did exactly that, and not ONE of the results listed any of the terms you've been claiming is so blatantly out there. I got an entire first page of information from the AKC, rescue groups, Wikopedia, all presenting balanced and accurate information and attempting to dispel the myths about Pit Bulls.

Here you go, this is the result that comes up from your exact search terms.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=information%20about%20pit%20bulls

And while I agree, the types of Pit Bull owners and forums that glorify fighting as a way to determine gameness COULD be detrimental to the breeds rep, except that I have yet to meet a member of the general public that has ever heard of the term game as it relates to dogs, and who would actually know to go searching for information on gameness in Pit Bulls. They know what they see in the media, and that's pretty much it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Because the cause is far more noble than entertaining a pack of sadistic jerks. I'm not even sure how anyone can look at the descriptions of a "game dog" (keeps fighting even after breaking all legs and being disemboweled, etc.) and not feel sick at what humans do to animals. How anyone can think that's even remotely admirable makes me ill.
> /.


You still miss the point.
Fighting to the death is NOT a description of game dogs. 
And if a game dog is willing to fight to the death it does not in anyway mean that most people are going to purposely put their dog in such a situation. 
You did use one correct word though. "noble". An animal human, dog, horse, etc.... That is willing to lay its life right down the line is a NOBLE trait. Do SOME people manipulate that trait into causing something bad? Sure. It happens. Evil people are going to be evil. But that trait can be purposely used by humans, or by the animal in question, to accomplish GREAT things. Therefore it IS something to be happy about.



> Yeha, by Googling "information about pit bulls". Which I'm pretty sure any 8-year-old could do :/.


Once again you are WRONG! I just copied and pasted your exact words and googled them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=inf...bout+pit+bulls&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Don't find much of anything about game, gameness, being game, etc. on the pages that came up. Find all sorts of information on the breed though. So where is all the stuff about "game"???? 

Oh yea... It is somewhere else... As I said... YOU HAVE TO GO LOOKING FOR IT! 
How many out of the general population are going to do that?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm not sure who makes up this mythical "general population". I consider myself about as average as possible in most aspects. Average people join forums when they have an interest (my mom joined a forum for people who grew up where she did. She's not exceptional in this regard. And is very average). Average people read books and look at websites to learn about breeds they've heard about in the media. I think average people Google to find out what words mean if they don't understand its use in that context. I do not think average people are idiots who believe everything presented to them by the media. I'm hoping those are below-average people or we'll be extinct before too long. I have spoken to intelligent people who think BSL is a good idea because of the prevalence of dogfighting. Not because they think pit bulls are dangerous, but because they think pit bulls are too often exploited. They make good points and I don't know how to counter their intelligent arguments. I think there's some serious underestimating of the general public going on.

Anyway, I guess I fail to see the nobility when they've been bred so deeply to be that way. It would be kind of like saying that being brown is noble :/. It's not like they're making a conscious decision to do it, because if they were they certainly wouldn't waste their life/safety on amusing some bloodthirsty idiots. Talk about anthropomorphizing. 

When it happens spontaneously because of a deep bond, I'll call that noble. Otherwise, no.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I'm not sure who makes up this mythical "general population". I consider myself about as average as possible in most aspects. Average people join forums when they have an interest (my mom joined a forum for people who grew up where she did. She's not exceptional in this regard. And is very average). Average people read books and look at websites to learn about breeds they've heard about in the media. I think average people Google to find out what words mean if they don't understand its use in that context. I do not think average people are idiots who believe everything presented to them by the media. I'm hoping those are below-average people or we'll be extinct before too long. I have spoken to intelligent people who think BSL is a good idea because of the prevalence of dogfighting. Not because they think pit bulls are dangerous, but because they think pit bulls are too often exploited. They make good points and I don't know how to counter their intelligent arguments. I think there's some serious underestimating of the general public going on.
> 
> Anyway, I guess I fail to see the nobility when they've been bred so deeply to be that way. It would be kind of like saying that being brown is noble :/. It's not like they're making a conscious decision to do it, because if they were they certainly wouldn't waste their life/safety on amusing some bloodthirsty idiots. Talk about anthropomorphizing.
> 
> When it happens spontaneously because of a deep bond, I'll call that noble. Otherwise, no.



First of all, your post........




> Yeha, by Googling "information about pit bulls". Which I'm pretty sure any 8-year-old could do :/.


Was proven to be COMPLETELY wrong.... By TWO people.

You are not going to answer to that? 

Nice attempt at a deflect. But it did not work. You are still wrong....

And this is downright hilarious!


> I'm not sure who makes up this mythical "general population".


Nothing mythical about the general population. Of all the things you have said that are out there on this forum. this I think is the farthest.

Here is a definition of the term for you.
In epidemiology, the general population refers to all individuals without reference to any specific characteristic.[1] In the broadest sense, the general population can refer to the entire human species, but smaller groups can be said to be representative of the general population if they have the same ratio of males to females, the same ratios of persons from different age groups, etc.

Most of us on this forum are in North America. So in the context I used the term, I was speaking of the entire population of North American.

Your statements attempt to place you into the general population. But within the scope of this discussion you are not. 

You are on this forum because you are a dog enthusiast. You have a higher level of interest in dogs than most people. 

The "average" person has little interest in dogs. 

For a person to find information on "gameness" in pit bulls on the internet, they have to be interested in Pit Bulls, have to hear the term "game" be curious enough to spent time to find it, and then despite your claims that have been proven wrong, they would have to make a concerted effort to look for it. 

Keep in mind that assuming one dog per owner... In the U.S. only about 25 percent of people own dogs. And in Canada it drops to just over 14 percent. And as we know, MANY people own MORE than one dog, so the percentages of dog owning people is actually lower. And not even all dog owners would be interested in learning about dogs. 

The average person has never heard the term "game" in reference to dogs. And if they do it is doubtful they are going to attempt to look up the meaning and if they did it is more doubtful that they would dig enough to find it. 

The general population may a mythical term to you. But it is FAR from mythical.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

I'm genuinely curious as to what exactly you're arguing Willowy...? Maybe if you were given a chance to clarify? 

Wikipedia should not be a reference for anything this serious.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What is there to say? Obviously I should have tried that search term before saying that. My point being that it would not be difficult for somebody innocently looking things up about pit bulls to run into pro-fighting information, especially from someone who pretends to be a responsible pit bull owner but really thinks fighting is necessary for the breed. I could probably prove that point but I don't really want to read/see any more of that stuff.

ASPCA says that 37%-47% of American households own dogs, average of 1.7 dogs per dog-owning household. I suppose due to the fact that most people live with at least one other person so it's not a 1 dog/1 owner ratio (I think for census purposes it's assumed that there are 3 people per household, as an average. It may have gone down now; people are having fewer kids). And a lot of people have owned dogs in the past. I don't think the majority of people are completely disinterested. Even if they were, I think a lot of people Google about something they hear on the news, animal-related or not. 

So, yes, I do think that kind of thing influences public opinion. If I see that Sports Illustrated cover (old, but maybe I run across it. Or some other anti-pit bull propaganda), I think, hey, they can't be that bad, let me Google for the truth, and, sure, I find rescues and animal groups defending them and all, but once I look further I find some real sketchy stuff. I'm not going to think it's a good idea to have a pit bull living next door.

But, sure, say that it doesn't make a difference. I'm sure it'll all work out in the end. . .


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Kayota said:


> how? it doesnt remotely affect you when i humanise my dog for my own fun. that is a really damn rude thing to say.


Missed this.
It does affect me when one's dog is not trained, not contained and if dogs are not euthanized if mental nut jobs. Do you fit in this category? If yes, then your humanizing/anthropomorphizing is CERTAINLY affecting somebody and it will eventually negatively impact your dog. 
You can see that in my few posts on this forum, I don't mind being rude.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

socorny said:


> I'm genuinely curious as to what exactly you're arguing Willowy...? Maybe if you were given a chance to clarify?


I'm saying that pit bull "enthusiasts" are the worst thing to happen to the breed. With friends like that you don't need enemies. They're going to get their breed banned everywhere, and they'll blame the media and the government and everybody else but themselves, but it's their own fault. And innocent dogs and owners will be the ones to pay the price. If they get my Rottweiler banned along with pit bulls I'm going to be really mad.

I do someday want a bully-type from the shelter. But I don't want to be associated with the breed's "people".


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> I'm saying that pit bull "enthusiasts" are the worst thing to happen to the breed. With friends like that you don't need enemies. They're going to get their breed banned everywhere, and they'll blame the media and the government and everybody else but themselves, but it's their own fault. And innocent dogs and owners will be the ones to pay the price. If they get my Rottweiler banned along with pit bulls I'm going to be really mad.
> 
> I do someday want a bully-type from the shelter. But I don't want to be associated with the breed's "people".


 These are not "enthusiasts" they are zealots. ALL zealots should be done away with in ALL facets of life. 
Enthusiasts KNOW. They know what they have and want the absolute BEST for the breed. 
To say that enthusiasts cause BSL is a throw down. You will have a serious argument on your hands by throwing ignorant comments like that around... 
Please do not get a bull/terrier type until you really do some research first. You don't know what you're talking about at all and I'll go as far as to say that you're being willfully obtuse on this topic.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> ASPCA says that 37%-47% of American households own dogs, average of 1.7 dogs per dog-owning household. I suppose due to the fact that most people live with at least one other person so it's not a 1 dog/1 owner ratio (I think for census purposes it's assumed that there are 3 people per household, as an average. It may have gone down now; people are having fewer kids). And a lot of people have owned dogs in the past. I don't think the majority of people are completely disinterested. Even if they were, I think a lot of people Google about something they hear on the news, animal-related or not.
> 
> .


Yea I used the ASPCA's estimate of 70-80 million. That equals 25 of Americans owning dogs. Their percentages they use are for households. but that is not an accurate way to do it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Yea I used the ASPCA's estimate of 70-80 million. That equals 25 of Americans owning dogs. Their percentages they use are for households. but that is not an accurate way to do it.


But if there are 2-4 people in the household, that does mean that more than 25% of Americans LIVE WITH a dog. Definitely, more than 25% of the houses on my mail route have dogs. Not that this is really important to the discussion, just saying.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> What is there to say? Obviously I should have tried that search term before saying that. My point being that it would not be difficult for somebody innocently looking things up about pit bulls to run into pro-fighting information, especially from someone who pretends to be a responsible pit bull owner but really thinks fighting is necessary for the breed. I could probably prove that point but I don't really want to read/see any more of that stuff.
> 
> . .


No you are still attempting to slide sideways out of the deal.. You HAVE to use some Very specific terms, that are not part of normal language unless you know something about pit bulls. Laymen are NOT going to know that words. And unlike you, I ran tests on google before I made my statement. 

Even dog owners on this forum seldom use many dog terms often used by some in dog community. People here mostly male, female or boy, girl to describe the sex of a dog. The correct term is Dog or Bitch. Same for the parents. The correct terms are Sire and Dam. I have mentioned to people many times in public, Hey you have a nice bitch and they look at me as if I cursed them... 



> So, yes, I do think that kind of thing influences public opinion. If I see that Sports Illustrated cover (old, but maybe I run across it. Or some other anti-pit bull propaganda), I think, hey, they can't be that bad, let me Google for the truth, and, sure, I find rescues and animal groups defending them and all, but once I look further I find some real sketchy stuff. I'm not going to think it's a good idea to have a pit bull living next door.
> 
> But, sure, say that it doesn't make a difference. I'm sure it'll all work out in the end. . .


The questions of game, gameness, etc... Simply do not come up in BSL debates.... So it makes NO difference..

Sensationalized media reports do....



Willowy said:


> But if there are 2-4 people in the household, that does mean that more than 25% of Americans LIVE WITH a dog. Definitely, more than 25% of the houses on my mail route have dogs. Not that this is really important to the discussion, just saying.


Living with a dog and owning a dog are two different things....


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

Willowy said:


> What is there to say? Obviously I should have tried that search term before saying that. My point being that it would not be difficult for somebody innocently looking things up about pit bulls to run into pro-fighting information, especially from someone who pretends to be a responsible pit bull owner but really thinks fighting is necessary for the breed.


You could probably prove it because you know what words to look for, like Johnny said a few pages back it's actually pretty difficult for someone to randomly stumble across that information and then to actually recognize what they are reading. I've been on dog forums for years and only within the last six months have I read anything pro-fighting, and I was very upset when I did. I stay well away from those people now. And I should say those people are really not as common as you think, or at least most are not so stupid as to talk about it openly. In all of my time on forums I've run into maybe 2 or 3, and I am a breed enthusiast who does a lot of research. I HAVE run into people against dog fighting who admire people that helped to build the breed who were dog fighters, if that makes sense.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> But if there are 2-4 people in the household, that does mean that more than 25% of Americans LIVE WITH a dog. Definitely, more than 25% of the houses on my mail route have dogs. Not that this is really important to the discussion, just saying.


Households are not people....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Living with a dog and owning a dog are two different things....


Huh. I wouldn't have been able to tell you who owned our family Lab (unless you mean legally? I'm not even sure whose name was on her rabies certificate. I think mine but I was a minor so it probably wasn't valid). I guess I don't see much difference. I figured someone living with a family dog would take more interest in dog subjects.

You're talking about a very specialized minority (people who use "correct" dog terms on a regular basis). I know very well what dog and bitch mean, I know what sire and dam mean, I'm just not going to use them because they're specialized terms that I have no use for. If I wanted to look something up that I thought used specialized terms, I'd use those words. But if I used them in everyday life I'd just be viewed as showing off how special I think my dog knowledge is. People know the words. Just because they don't use them every day doesn't mean they don't. Plus, you don't need to know the term "game" to find pro-fighting information.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> I HAVE run into people against dog fighting who admire people that helped to build the breed who were dog fighters, if that makes sense.


It doesn't, really :/. People can't say "dog fighting is wrong!. . .except for those guys because they were super awesome for making a breed to fight with". That just negates anything they might say against fighting.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

Willowy said:


> It doesn't, really :/. People can't say "dog fighting is wrong!. . .except for those guys because they were super awesome for making a breed to fight with". That just negates anything they might say against fighting.


That's not what I meant. More like "These people recognized the traits the pit bull should have and unfortunately tested for them by dogfighting. Thankfully we no longer have to do that because dog fighting is wrong." They are not condoning what they did but it is a part of the history.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

I think what Sarah meant, or at least what I can think of, is that even though those founders of the breed committed that immoral act, they still put time and consideration into building the right temperament, structure for working, etc. You can disagree with something someone did, but still like something else they did.

Just realized she already posted, but yeah 

Honestly I'm not as worried about the general public finding the small population of people that condone it in certain corners of the internet. I'm more worried about stuff like *THIS*, all these XXXL Blue Bully Pitbulls that are "Protection Dogs" because they throw themselves into the public eye and most of them are ignorant in...I mean, do I have to explain those people? They speak for themselves.

I don't say the above to avoid the issue of people that condone fighting, or say stupid things specific to gamebred dogs, but their numbers pale in comparison to these outrageous "grow bigger and harsher to people" Am Bully/Pit Bull hippos being sold everywhere and advertised to the point that people can't even recognize what a truer-to-standard APBT or bull breed mix looks like.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

Melle said:


> I think what Sarah meant, or at least what I can think of, is that even though those founders of the breed committed that immoral act, they still put time and consideration into building the right temperament, structure for working, etc. You can disagree with something someone did, but still like something else they did.
> 
> Just realized she already posted, but yeah


:thumbup: Exactly


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> You're talking about a very specialized minority (people who use "correct" dog terms on a regular basis). I know very well what dog and bitch mean, I know what sire and dam mean, I'm just not going to use them because they're specialized terms that I have no use for. If I wanted to look something up that I thought used specialized terms, I'd use those words. But if I used them in everyday life I'd just be viewed as showing off how special I think my dog knowledge is. People know the words. Just because they don't use them every day doesn't mean they don't. Plus, you don't need to know the term "game" to find pro-fighting information.


LOL you just made my statement about the specific terms needed to find the stuff about "game" STRONGER!
Times tend. If dog and bitch and sire and dam are specialized terms, then Game is specialized times ten..... Dog and bitch and sire and dam apply to all dogs. Game applies to VERY FEW.... 

THANK YOU!!!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Clearly you skipped over the part where I said that people KNOW the terms and will use them in a search but not in everyday speech. But sigh, whatevs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It doesn't, really :/. People can't say "dog fighting is wrong!. . .except for those guys because they were super awesome for making a breed to fight with". That just negates anything they might say against fighting.


The breed is AWESOME! And would have NEVER existed if it were not for the old time dog men. Those men created a GREAT breed. 

You can ADMIRE what they accomplished through breeding and at the same time CONDEMN what they did with what they created.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm just going to point out that "idiot" here starts off his fine pro-fighting dissertation with the question "do pit bulls really have locking jaws?", which seems like quite a reasonable thing for a newbie to Google: http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqfaq.html

So I don't think it's so hard to find without knowing the terminology.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Clearly you skipped over the part where I said that people KNOW the terms and will use them in a search but not in everyday speech. But sigh, whatevs.



I did not miss it... Because the general public does NOT know them.

And "game"...... Heck a majority of the people here would not know the term if it was not discussed.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I'm just going to point out that "idiot" here starts off his fine pro-fighting dissertation with the question "do pit bulls really have locking jaws?", which seems like quite a reasonable thing for a newbie to Google: http://www.nyx.net/~mbur/apbtfaqfaq.html
> 
> So I don't think it's so hard to find without knowing the terminology.


You keep strengthening my points. THANKS AGAIN!!!!

Locking jaws IS NOT something pit people or EVEN dog people discuss. Because anyone with any common sense KNOWS their jaws do not lock. 

You call the guy an idiot, but he is dispelling a myth. 

Locking jaws and ridiculous bite pressure are things that are talked about on sensationalized media reports...

Not talked about by dog people....

But keep twisting and keep trying... Every time you do, it just strengthens my statements.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You keep strengthening my points. THANKS AGAIN!!!!
> 
> Locking jaws IS NOT something pit people or EVEN dog people discuss. Because anyone with any common sense KNOWS their jaws do not lock.
> 
> ...


Um, yeah? I'm saying that if someone Googles for information about that misconception, they will find that guy who says that fighting is the absolutely only way to maintain gameness in the breed. If they didn't know the term before, they would afterward.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Um, yeah? I'm saying that if someone Googles for information about that misconception, they will find that guy who says that fighting is the absolutely only way to maintain gameness in the breed. If they didn't know the term before, they would afterward.


I know what you THINK you are saying.... But you are WRONG again...

But what you are REALLY saying is that when someone googles information about the myth of locking jaws, they MIGHT come across a site that dis spells that myth...


And AGAIN! you should REALLY do some checking before you make statements about google. I would have thought you would have already learned that. 

If you google about locking jaws in pit bulls, the site you linked does NOT even come up...

Try again...


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

Melle said:


> I think what Sarah meant, or at least what I can think of, is that even though those founders of the breed committed that immoral act, they still put time and consideration into building the right temperament, structure for working, etc. You can disagree with something someone did, but still like something else they did.
> 
> Just realized she already posted, but yeah
> 
> ...


Basically, this what I've been trying to say. You've made some great points.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The breed is AWESOME! And would have NEVER existed if it were not for the old time dog men. Those men created a GREAT breed.
> 
> You can ADMIRE what they accomplished through breeding and at the same time CONDEMN what they did with what they created.


 YESSSSS. thank you!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I know what you THINK you are saying.... But you are WRONG again...
> 
> But what you are REALLY saying is that when someone googles information about the myth of locking jaws, they MIGHT come across a site that dis spells that myth...
> 
> ...


 You didn't read the rest of that guy's FAQ, did you? 

Anyway, I did Google "do pit bulls really have locking jaws" and his site did come up, granted on the 5th page but it was there . I suppose the rescue sites have loaded that phrase to try to keep people from finding guys like him.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> You didn't read the rest of that guy's FAQ, did you?
> 
> Anyway, I did Google "do pit bulls really have locking jaws" and his site did come up, granted on the 5th page but it was there . I suppose the rescue sites have loaded that phrase to try to keep people from finding guys like him.



Of course I did..... And you can keep twisting.....

And 94 percent of google users never leave the 1st page... NO ONE goes to the fifth page.... LOL 


Try again.....


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> You didn't read the rest of that guy's FAQ, did you?
> 
> Anyway, I did Google "do pit bulls really have locking jaws" and his site did come up, granted on the 5th page but it was there . I suppose the rescue sites have loaded that phrase to try to keep people from finding guys like him.


What is the summation of your beliefs? I truly do not understand what point you are making....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> What is the summation of your beliefs? I truly do not understand what point you are making....


She is not making a point... She is arguing to argue and trying in vain to prove she is not wrong...


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

Not to mention even if someone made it that far, the vast majority of people already know dog fighting is wrong and would just write off the guy talking about fighting as an idiot.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> She is not making a point... She is arguing to argue and trying in vain to prove she is not wrong...


 Well that sounds fun. I'm not trying to single you out willowy but I just do NOT get what you are saying? You're arguing yourself in circles. 
APBT's have a dirty history. It made them great... I mean EXCELLENT. You can't accept the breed and not accept their past.
You do NOT have to advocate/condone their past, but you do have to accept it. 
If you can't accept it, for the love of god, do not get an APBT.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> If you can't accept it, for the love of god, do not get an APBT.


No worries there---I've been told that a shelter bully type can't possibly be a real APBT . 

Can't say I've ever thought about the great-great-great forebears of any dog I've owned, not sure why that would affect my day-to-day life with any other dog. Obviously some thought needs to be put into breed traits (although I feel the individual is more important), but I'm not sure why accepting history would be so vital. Not even sure what "accepting" history involves. I don't find much to admire about history in general.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> You can disagree with something someone did, but still like something else they did.


I can understand that, I guess. Thomas Edison was a psycho but I can still appreciate light bulbs . Most early inventors/politicians/etc. were philanderers, child abusers, cruel to animals, slave owners, eugenicists, oh, they had all kinds of unpleasant traits. But we can still appreciate what good things they did.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Willowy said:


> As Foresthund said, according to the pit bull people, a pit bull is only "game" if it is willing to fight to the death. They do not consider working ability or sports ability to be "game". I would consider my old Lab "game" in that she was willing to retrieve to the death (it's not a good trait in a pet dog :/) but the word has been co-opted by the dog fighters and those who admire dog fighters. It doesn't just refer to energy, drive, and grit, but specifically to death-fighting willingness. Check out just about any pit bull forum. Not hard to find, even I found them .


As others have said, gameness is more of a terrier thing, so it wouldn't really apply to your lab, but being "willing to fight to the death" isn't the same thing as "gameness in pit bulls is only demonstrated by willingness to rip apart other animals in a competitive dog fight." Yeah, if it's been bred and trained to be dog aggressive and do dogfighting, that'd be the arena in which the gameness would be demonstrated. But most pit owners aren't breeding or training pits for dogfighting nowadays, so that same boldness is demonstrated in other ways. It's like this thoroughbred we had when I was a kid that would could have been raced to death without balking, whereas most horses will give up when overextended physically. A dog that has the drive to never give up at its task, regardless of injury or distraction, until called off can be way too much for a novice owner to handle, but in the right hands, that dog can do amazing things.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> No worries there---I've been told that a shelter bully type can't possibly be a real APBT .
> 
> Can't say I've ever thought about the great-great-great forebears of any dog I've owned, not sure why that would affect my day-to-day life with any other dog. Obviously some thought needs to be put into breed traits (although I feel the individual is more important), but I'm not sure why accepting history would be so vital. Not even sure what "accepting" history involves. I don't find much to admire about history in general.


Just because it is not important to you, does not mean it is not important....


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

My view is, generally speaking, tenaciousness is the defining temperamental trait of a well-bred working terrier. It's in their blood going back generations. If one doesn't appreciate tenaciousness, one probably shouldn't own a terrier.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Pretty much at a loss as to what to say to you further Willowy. You want the last word? Have it.


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

parus said:


> My view is, generally speaking, tenaciousness is the defining temperamental trait of a well-bred working terrier. It's in their blood going back generations. If one doesn't appreciate tenaciousness, one probably shouldn't own a terrier.


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

This thread exploded sense I was gone.

Tenacious is a terrier trait,the difference is is that a working terrier is around 12lbs while a Pit can be up to 65lbs. Pits are the ones that are euthanized by about a million a year and have caused more fatal attacks on humans and other animals then pretty much all other dogs combined. There is a issue here that no one wants to try to resolve sense they don't want to lose their breed,understandable. But with all the breed bans,restrictions and poor breeding this might already be happening. Will we do anything about that? Doubtfully,we want to still egotistically cling on to our dogs warrior instincts like no other or treat them like any other than perhaps there is no hope for the breed I still love. 

It is also not simply as easy not to own a breed and I`m even the type that might want a pit in the future. I've had to deal with more Pit bull attacks on my animals than any other breed combined,and always the more violent attacks,more so than I can count. Because this dog aggression and gameness is so important yet the average owner cannot control their dogs or want to. Nobody wants to deal with this,especially people that have something to lose by it. From peaking at the ever growing pit bull hate groups many of the reasons people turn against the breed was because their pet was killed,and these people go on to promote BSL. So yes this behavior can encourage BSL to happen. It is frustrating because I like a dog with tenacity and hardness,but I`m not sure if it is the responsible way to go.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Of course I did..... And you can keep twisting.....
> 
> And 94 percent of google users never leave the 1st page... NO ONE goes to the fifth page.... LOL
> 
> ...


if i really want info i will go to the fifth page


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Foresthund said:


> This thread exploded sense I was gone.
> 
> Tenacious is a terrier trait,the difference is is that a working terrier is around 12lbs while a Pit can be up to 65lbs. Pits are the ones that are euthanized by about a million a year and have caused more fatal attacks on humans and other animals then pretty much all other dogs combined. There is a issue here that no one wants to try to resolve sense they don't want to lose their breed,understandable. But with all the breed bans,restrictions and poor breeding this might already be happening. Will we do anything about that? Doubtfully,we want to still egotistically cling on to our dogs warrior instincts like no other or treat them like any other than perhaps there is no hope for the breed I still love.
> 
> It is also not simply as easy not to own a breed and I`m even the type that might want a pit in the future. I've had to deal with more Pit bull attacks on my animals than any other breed combined,and always the more violent attacks,more so than I can count. Because this dog aggression and gameness is so important yet the average owner cannot control their dogs or want to. Nobody wants to deal with this,especially people that have something to lose by it. From peaking at the ever growing pit bull hate groups many of the reasons people turn against the breed was because their pet was killed,and these people go on to promote BSL. So yes this behavior can encourage BSL to happen. It is frustrating because I like a dog with tenacity and hardness,but I`m not sure if it is the responsible way to go.


I really agree with most of what you posted here. 
Pit bull type dogs really do need a specialized owner. Most people should not own them. 
I don't own "game" pit bulls anymore. I don't feel like putting that much energy into a dog ever again. My JRT's were difficult as well but they were certainly a more manageable size.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

The average bull breed shelter mix, in reference to "pit bull type dog" is generally very watered down, though. The only thing I worry about people handling is DA, but it's not uncommon for dogs to be selective or intolerant. So most learned people with the average shelter mix do pretty well.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

I think I know what forum you're talking about, and yeah, it's pretty scary. I was a member there for a day, then logged off and never looked back. The people on it don't outright admit to fighting their dogs, but they admit they support it and hint heavily at doing so.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Foresthund said:


> Pits are the ones that are euthanized by about a million a year and have caused more fatal attacks on humans and other animals then pretty much all other dogs combined.


You do not know this to be true. No one does.. The CDC stopped recording which breed was responsible in human deaths in 1996 because there is no accurate way to do it. 

The Media defaults to Pit Bull. Because it sells stories and gets picked up on the AP and Reuters wires and goes viral on the net. 

The "pit bull" that the mother left alone in the house with her child in a toddler swing while she went outside, near Houston a couple of years back. Was really a KNOWN lab mastiff mix, all 115 pounds of him.

The "pit bull" that killed an infant near Atlanta a few years back... 10 year old Boxer. Complete with AKC registration. 
That same year an 11 year old boy in Georgia was killed by a "pit bull" that was actually a Chesapeake Bay Retriever. Also complete with AKC registration. 
I could go on.......

People read in the news that pit bulls kill more people and believe it. But no one knows.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Melle said:


> The average bull breed shelter mix, in reference to "pit bull type dog" is generally very watered down, though. The only thing I worry about people handling is DA, but it's not uncommon for dogs to be selective or intolerant. So most learned people with the average shelter mix do pretty well.


I meant APBT specifically. There is only one.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You do not know this to be true. No one does.. The CDC stopped recording which breed was responsible in human deaths in 1996 because there is no accurate way to do it.
> 
> The Media defaults to Pit Bull. Because it sells stories and gets picked up on the AP and Reuters wires and goes viral on the net.
> 
> ...


True. Although I have seen many videos of attacks that were quite obviously pit bull types, possibly even APBT's. Why does there need to be this elaborate DNA testing (not that this is at ALL effective) and need for proof of registration (some of the best APBT's that have ever existed were not registered) to believe that some of these dogs ARE pit bull types. 
That is why I stated that crap breeders are one of the reason BSL exists today. People that refuse to cull the HA abominations out of their breeding stock.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You do not know this to be true. No one does.. The CDC stopped recording which breed was responsible in human deaths in 1996 because there is no accurate way to do it.
> 
> The Media defaults to Pit Bull. Because it sells stories and gets picked up on the AP and Reuters wires and goes viral on the net.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I'm growing really tired of people slinging the whole "Pit Bulls are responsible for more fatal attacks then any other breed" crap like it's a fact. It's not a fact. There was never an official study done to say either way, and the "studies" that do exist were done by Anti-Pit Bull propaganda sites, with their info collected from media reports. Because the media is a really reliable source.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

RCloud said:


> Agreed. I'm growing really tired of people slinging the whole "Pit Bulls are responsible for more fatal attacks then any other breed" crap like it's a fact. It's not a fact. There was never an official study done to say either way, and the "studies" that do exist were done by Anti-Pit Bull propaganda sites, with their info collected from media reports. Because the media is a really reliable source.


This all the way.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> Agreed. I'm growing really tired of people slinging the whole "Pit Bulls are responsible for more fatal attacks then any other breed" crap like it's a fact. It's not a fact. There was never an official study done to say either way, and the "studies" that do exist were done by Anti-Pit Bull propaganda sites, with their info collected from media reports. Because the media is a really reliable source.


 Absolutely agree with you BUT... acting as if the APBT has never fatally mauled someone is just as deluded and wrong as stating that they are responsible for all/most fatal attacks. 
I believe one of Louis Colby's dogs killed one of his nephews.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> Absolutely agree with you BUT... acting as if the APBT has never fatally mauled someone is just as deluded and wrong as stating that they are responsible for all/most fatal attacks.
> I believe one of Louis Colby's dogs killed one of his nephews.


ANY and ALL dogs are capable of seriously injuring and killing people. I don't think anyone here has ever denied there have been Pit Bulls responsible for some fatal attacks, but singling them out and stating they are more dangerous than any other dog is BS. Not so long ago in the news, there was an article about a baby in the UK killed by a Jack Russell. Funny no one is trying to crucify all JRTs now.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> True. Although I have seen many videos of attacks that were quite obviously pit bull types, possibly even APBT's. Why does there need to be this elaborate DNA testing (not that this is at ALL effective) and need for proof of registration (some of the best APBT's that have ever existed were not registered) to believe that some of these dogs ARE pit bull types.
> That is why I stated that crap breeders are one of the reason BSL exists today. People that refuse to cull the HA abominations out of their breeding stock.


Attacks of humans are RARELY on video.. If they are... Who is shooting the video and why are they not helping out? 

I am not sure why this got turned into a BSL thing. 

BSL is a failed experiment that is on its way out. More places are overturning breed bans than enacting them. As of last year 17 states had a Statute in place that no city, county, local government could enact ANY breed specific ordinances. Six more states will have laws in place by the end of the year or early 2015. Most grandfathered in the ordinances that were in place. Florida was the FIRST by the way. And I was part of helping that happen. Back in the late 1980's when other people in their early 20's were out clubbing, hanging out at the beach, etc. I was walking the halls of the Florida State Capital, wearing a suit, my APBT Tank, at my side. We and MANY others talked to everyone. ANYONE..... If we found an ear we talked to it. I sat down with more State Senators and Representatives than I could count. Tank, shook hands, did tricks, even licked some faces. 

The trend is that more places are overturning their BSL than enacting them. And even some places that still have BSL in place have stopped enforcing it. It gets expensive. Miami/Dade county has spent millions in legal fees. Their law was declared un enforcible by the courts several years ago. Anytime they attempt to remove a "pit bull" one of many groups will pay for an attorney for the owner. Then bing bang boom, the judge throws it out. The irony is I do not know why more people do not challenge BSL laws...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> Absolutely agree with you BUT... acting as if the APBT has never fatally mauled someone is just as deluded and wrong as stating that they are responsible for all/most fatal attacks.
> I believe one of Louis Colby's dogs killed one of his nephews.


Pomeranians have killed humans. 

Pits are drivey, athletic, medium sized dogs.... Nothing more... Putting them on a pedestal alone is BAD......


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Pomeranians have killed humans.
> 
> Pits are drivey, athletic, medium sized dogs.... Nothing more... Putting them on a pedestal alone is BAD......


I'm just not going to further this line of commentary as it will only succeed in ruffling feathers.
I will say this: if you went up to the parents of a child that was killed by a *drivey, athletic, medium sized* dog and said "Pomeranians have killed humans"... you would probably be physically assaulted... and rightfully so.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> Agreed. I'm growing really tired of people slinging the whole "Pit Bulls are responsible for more fatal attacks then any other breed" crap like it's a fact. It's not a fact. There was never an official study done to say either way, and the "studies" that do exist were done by Anti-Pit Bull propaganda sites, with their info collected from media reports. Because the media is a really reliable source.


 I believe that ALL dogs that have shown HA combined with intention to do harm (in MOST situations) should be euthanized. Any person that does not euthanize is at least irresponsible and at worst criminal.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> I believe that ALL dogs that have shown HA combined with intention to do harm (in MOST situations) should be euthanized. Any person that does not euthanize is at least irresponsible and at worst criminal.


Then I guess it's a good thing you don't make the laws, because there's a lot of HA dogs out there that you wouldn't know were HA due to their owners maintaning and managing them in such a way that they aren't a danger to the public. That to me is being a good responsible, dedicated owner.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> Then I guess it's a good thing you don't make the laws, because there's a lot of HA dogs out there that you wouldn't know were HA due to their owners maintaning and managing them in such a way that they aren't a danger to the public. That to me is being a good responsible, dedicated owner.


 I don't care how "dedicated" or "responsible" you think you are, accidents happen. Eradicate the possibility of accidents as much as possible. 
I WISH I could make the laws. There'd be a hell of a lot less senseless injury/disfiguration/even death if I were.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> I believe that ALL dogs that have shown HA combined with intention to do harm (in MOST situations) should be euthanized. Any person that does not euthanize is at least irresponsible and at worst criminal.


I EXPECT my dogs to exhibit human aggression in some situations......

And your statement actually means this.... "You want ALL dogs to be euthanized." Because any dog can be human aggressive. And just because a dog has not been, does not mean it will not show aggression at some point.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> I don't care how "dedicated" or "responsible" you think you are, accidents happen. Eradicate the possibility of accidents as much as possible.
> I WISH I could make the laws. There'd be a hell of a lot less senseless injury/disfiguration/even death if I were.




Only way to do that is to eliminate dogs..


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> I don't care how "dedicated" or "responsible" you think you are, accidents happen. Eradicate the possibility of accidents as much as possible.
> I WISH I could make the laws. There'd be a hell of a lot less senseless injury/disfiguration/even death if I were.


Considering a lot of those senseless injuries/disfigurement/and deaths happen as the result of PEOPLE not having common sense, no you wouldn't. All dogs in the right situation will bite and draw blood.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I EXPECT my dogs to exhibit human aggression in some situations......
> 
> And your statement actually means this.... "You want ALL dogs to be euthanized." Because any dog can be human aggressive. And just because a dog has not been, does not mean it will not show aggression at some point.


 Do you all have vision problems? Do you see the bracketed portion of the comment?



RCloud said:


> Considering a lot of those senseless injuries/disfigurement/and deaths happen as the result of PEOPLE not having common sense, no you wouldn't.


 Yes. That's what happens.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Only way to do that is to eliminate dogs..


All or nothing kind of guy huh? If you get into a faulty car, you eliminate the risk by recalling the vehicles causing the risk. You do not recall all vehicles of every make and model.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> Do you all have vision problems? Do you see the bracketed portion of the comment?
> 
> 
> Yes. That's what happens.


No my vision is just fine.... I saw the brackets. I have no idea what your idea of "Most situations" is. Nor do I care. 


WHAT you are suggesting, is the elimination of dogs....


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> Yes. That's what happens.


So you think, and you couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> No my vision is just fine.... I saw the brackets. I have no idea what your idea of "Most situations" is. Nor do I care.
> 
> 
> WHAT you are suggesting, is the elimination of dogs....


 HA man biters. Yes I am absolutely suggesting it and advocating it. 
When a dog went "nuts" and bit my old timey grandpa, it was taken out back. When a dog bit and drew blood after resource guarding, it was taken out back. 
There were strict standards. They should still be.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> So you think, and you couldn't be more wrong.


A good dog will tolerate most anything. A crap dog won't. 
I'm not saying that the animal should tolerate abuse or should not defend it's people. I'm saying that a baby grabbing a rawhide bone and getting its face ripped off is not something that should EVER be tolerated. Not EVER.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> All or nothing kind of guy huh? If you get into a faulty car, you eliminate the risk by recalling the vehicles causing the risk. You do not recall all vehicles of every make and model.


Not what I said at all.... 

On the other hand.... 

YOU made a very "all or nothing statement.



> *I believe that ALL dogs that have shown HA combined with intention to do harm* (in MOST situations) should be euthanized. Any person that does not euthanize is at least irresponsible and at worst criminal.


You EVEN capitalized ALL for emphasis....


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> So you think, and you couldn't be more wrong.


 Wish there was a sarcasm font. The previous comment was dripping.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Not what I said at all....
> 
> On the other hand....
> 
> ...


*(In MOST situations) * << I like how you left that part out. That was fun.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> HA man biters. Yes I am absolutely suggesting it and advocating it.
> When a dog went "nuts" and bit my old timey grandpa, it was taken out back. When a dog bit and drew blood after resource guarding, it was taken out back.
> There were strict standards. They should still be.


That's called looking for a quick fix, not being a responsible owner. My cattle dog is very protective and use to guard me from my husband. If I was on the couch or laying in bed, and my dog was sitting with me, my husband couldn't get near me, and he had been bitten once or twice enough where blood was drawn. Rather then killing him, we worked with him, and now the problem has been solved and he no longer is possessive. Dogs aren't trash you can just throw out when things arise.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> That's called looking for a quick fix, not being a responsible owner. My cattle dog is very protective and use to guard me from my husband. If I was on the couch or laying in bed, and my dog was sitting with me, my husband couldn't get near me, and he had been bitten once or twice enough where blood was drawn. Rather then killing him, we worked with him, and now the problem has been solved and he no longer is possessive. Dogs aren't trash you can just throw out when things arise.


Well... everyone has different priorities. 
Luckily for my husband he is my priority over my dog. I'm lucky that I am a priority to him over the dog. 
I kind of thought you were fighting this so hard because you yourself own a man biter...
And yes... the fix is very quick.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> A good dog will tolerate most anything. A crap dog won't.
> I'm not saying that the animal should tolerate abuse or should not defend it's people. I'm saying that a baby grabbing a rawhide bone and getting its face ripped off is not something that should EVER be tolerated. Not EVER.


Because heaven forbid parents watch their lods around animals.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> Because heaven forbid parents watch their lods around animals.


That takes literally milliseconds to happen! Theoretically, it could be enough time that you couldn't reach your child from the couch to the dog in time! 
Let's keep making excuses for man biters, seeing as you own one personally.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> Well... everyone has different priorities.
> Luckily for my husband he is my priority over my dog. I'm lucky that I am a priority to him over the dog.
> I kind of thought you were fighting this so hard because you yourself own a man biter...
> And yes... the fix is very quick.


Nah, I just own dogs. Lucky for them my husband and I grasp they are living breathing creatures with thoughts and feelings. Lucky for them we're not trigger happy.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> Nah, I just own dogs. Lucky for them my husband and I grasp they are living breathing creatures with thoughts and feelings. Lucky for them we're not trigger happy.


Tell me what they think about? What type of complex conversations have you and your dog had? When will people comprehend that to your dog, you are a resource. I DO believe that dogs have some limited emotions and that is being generous but truly: you = food and a "pack" or protection.
Lucky for my family and the GP, I'm willing to go the extra mile to keep them safe.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> That takes literally milliseconds to happen! Theoretically, it could be enough time that you couldn't reach your child from the couch to the dog in time!
> Let's keep making excuses for man biters, seeing as you own one personally.


You don't have a clue what I have, or what most dog owners have, including yourself. And that's fine, though I feel really awful for your dog, and wonder why you even have them. 

Ah well, my husband and I are going to go snuggle with our loving, devoted, cuddly "man biter" now who is just that much more awesome because we decided to actually be dog owners and work with him rather then blow his brains out.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> HA man biters. Yes I am absolutely suggesting it and advocating it.
> When a dog went "nuts" and bit my old timey grandpa, it was taken out back. When a dog bit and drew blood after resource guarding, it was taken out back.
> There were strict standards. They should still be.


And for all I know, Your "Grandpa" did something that caused him to deserve to be bit. Maybe the resource guarder, was starved. 

Those behaviors are in all dogs, somewhere....... The right or the wrong stimulus will bring it out. 

Are there dogs that should be euthanized over aggression. Absolutely. Many times those dogs are manageable. But still need to go for liability reasons. 

But you are painting with a broad brush. More like dumping a giant can of paint on the entire earth. 

But am I ready to say dogs should be euthanized without fail? No. 

In your example:
For all I know your Grandpa was mean to the dog. And the resource guarder was communally fed by an owner that did zero management at feeding time.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> You don't have a clue what I have, or what most dog owners have, including yourself. And that's fine, though I feel really awful for your dog, and wonder why you even have them.
> 
> Ah well, my husband and I are going to go snuggle with our loving, devoted, cuddly "man biter" now.


 My dog has an ideal life. I have her because I love her.
If she bit someone (in MOST situations) I would do the right thing and have her euthanized by a professional. She would go peacefully and momentarily. I'm willing to do this because I value human life over dog life. 
You enjoy your dog, just keep it away from... everyone.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> Wish there was a sarcasm font. The previous comment was dripping.
> 
> 
> 
> *(In MOST situations) * << I like how you left that part out. That was fun.


I did NOT leave it out. It is an extremely VAGUE statement. No way to answer to that....


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And for all I know, Your "Grandpa" did something that caused him to deserve to be bit. Maybe the resource guarder, was starved.
> 
> Those behaviors are in all dogs, somewhere....... The right or the wrong stimulus will bring it out.
> 
> ...


Boy oh boy! We'd better assume the worst. My grandpa was an animal beatin', animal starvin' with the intelligence of a bowling ball. 
He respected and loved his dogs. Always fed them even when very poor. 
My grandpa was a stand up fellow. Honest. Hardworking. Just didn't tolerate any crap from his animals at any time. 

I just did his eulogy six months ago so I'd appreciate you not imply such trash about a man you never met just to prove a point. 

You reap what you sow. You want to put all of your time, thought and dedication into a creature that will live a possible 12-14 years- go ahead. Some people like to invest their time in people. I do. Which is why I refuse to allow a man biter to exist. 
You're welcome GP.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> Boy oh boy! We'd better assume the worst. My grandpa was an animal beatin', animal starvin' with the intelligence of a bowling ball.


Why not take a page from your book?


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I did NOT leave it out. It is an extremely VAGUE statement. No way to answer to that....


You didn't ask for an explanation. Actually you stated that you didn't really care. It still leaves room for exceptions. 
You left it out because it didn't fit your Ultimate Point. 
Some people just don't like to be wrong. I think you and Willowy made good bedfellows.



RCloud said:


> Why not take a page from your book?


What? .......


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> A good dog will tolerate most anything. A crap dog won't.
> I'm not saying that the animal should tolerate abuse or should not defend it's people. I'm saying that a baby grabbing a rawhide bone and getting its face ripped off is not something that should EVER be tolerated. Not EVER.


A baby should never have the opportunity to grab a rawhide bone from a dog. There is a thing called supervision. 

So not only are you suggesting the elimination of dogs, you are now condoning and supporting irresponsible owners.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> Boy oh boy! We'd better assume the worst. My grandpa was an animal beatin', animal starvin' with the intelligence of a bowling ball.
> He respected and loved his dogs. Always fed them even when very poor.
> My grandpa was a stand up fellow. Honest. Hardworking. Just didn't tolerate any crap from his animals at any time.
> 
> ...


If you did not want your Grandpa mentioned.... You should NOT have brought him up. 

You say he was gentle to his dogs... I do not know that to be true... If a dog bit him, for all I know he did mean things to the dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> You didn't ask for an explanation. Actually you stated that you didn't really care. It still leaves room for exceptions.
> You left it out because it didn't fit your Ultimate Point.
> ...


Nope... I left it out and do not care.... Because it is such a broad statement, it is meaningless... 


As for people being wrong.... Someone is and it is NOT me..


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If you did not want your Grandpa mentioned.... You should NOT have brought him up.
> 
> You say he was gentle to his dogs... I do not know that to be true... If a dog bit him, for all I know he did mean things to the dog.


 You are laughable. Utterly ridiculous. 
I brought my grandpa up from the position of knowing him my ENTIRE life. You brought him up implying that he starved/beat his dogs, just to be right. 
Takes a real man to say that behind an Internet facade.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Nope... I left it out and do not care.... Because it is such a broad statement, it is meaningless...
> 
> 
> As for people being wrong.... Someone is and it is NOT me..


I have my opinions. Which I have every right to express on this forum... as much right as you do. I don't ask you to agree with them or follow them.
I do not feel I am wrong, but I feel you are. You believe the reverse. So what? Let's attempt to crap on the reputation of a man you have never met. Keeping it classy....


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> What? .......


You seem to enjoy assuming and implying the worst of other people and their dogs. The irony is funny when the tables are turned. JB's point is dogs very rarely will just attack and "go nuts" for no reason. There is almost always a reason behind it that triggers things to happen. Most often, the trigger is the result of something people are doing. Sometimes dogs do need to be put down because of it, but a lot of times they can be helped with a little bit of effort on behalf of the owners.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> A baby should never have the opportunity to grab a rawhide bone from a dog. There is a thing called supervision.
> 
> So not only are you suggesting the elimination of dogs, you are now condoning and supporting irresponsible owners.


 That is what you take from my comments. You try to fit pieces of a puzzle that Just. Don't. Fit. Cut 'em down to the size you want... right?


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> You seem to enjoy assuming and implying the worst of other people and their dogs. The irony is funny when the tables are turned. JB's point is dogs very rarely will just attack and "go nuts" for no reason. There is almost always a reason behind it that triggers things to happen. Most often, the trigger is the result of something people are doing. Sometimes dogs do need to be put down because of it, but a lot of times they can be helped with a little bit of effort on behalf of the owners.


If dogs are so delicate, that every minuscule thing is a trigger... I can't even...


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> If dogs are so delicate, that every minuscule thing is a trigger... I can't even...


Yes, I know you can't.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> You are laughable. Utterly ridiculous.
> I brought my grandpa up from the position of knowing him my ENTIRE life. You brought him up implying that he starved/beat his dogs, just to be right.
> Takes a real man to say that behind an Internet facade.



I am glad I am entertaining.... 

I did not imply anything about your grandpa.... You used him in an Example. 

For all I know he could have been mean to the dog. I do not know him or you. And based on your statements, I hold very little stock in what you say. 

As for attempting to insult my manhood, well... Think what you want. But I am outspoken all the time. I would say the same thing face to face...


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> Yes, I know you can't.


 Do you have a point? Or is this self soothing behaviour? 
You own a man biter. That's fine if you want to tolerate it. I don't want to tolerate it. The GP doesn't want to tolerate it. Leave it at home.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> Do you have a point? Or is this self soothing behaviour?
> You own a man biter. That's fine if you want to tolerate it. I don't want to tolerate it. The GP doesn't want to tolerate it. Leave it at home.


I do have a point, and damn if it's not going RIGHT over your head.

And again, you don't know what I have. You want people to stop making assumptions about your family? Stop making them about others.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> That is what you take from my comments. You try to fit pieces of a puzzle that Just. Don't. Fit. Cut 'em down to the size you want... right?


Nope... I take them exactly as your wrote them. IF you did not mean exactly what you said, then say so..

Since you have not... It seems pretty clear that you did not mean something else...

Your example of the child and the baby is PRICELESS.... I LOVE that one...

A human should be in charge of both the human and the baby. And allowing a child to approach a dog chewing on something is negligent...


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am glad I am entertaining....
> 
> I did not imply anything about your grandpa.... You used him in an Example.
> 
> ...


No you wouldn't. That is part of the interwebz reputation that you've created for yourself. 
Tough guy behind an Internet screen. 
I used him K N O W I N G him. Do you know him? Yes or no? That was not an implication? How not? Seriously? 
I could care less what you put stock in.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> Do you have a point? Or is this self soothing behaviour?
> You own a man biter. That's fine if you want to tolerate it. I don't want to tolerate it. The GP doesn't want to tolerate it. Leave it at home.


I would play with either of RCouds dogs.. without concern.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

socorny said:


> A good dog will tolerate most anything. A crap dog won't.
> I'm not saying that the animal should tolerate abuse or should not defend it's people. I'm saying that a baby grabbing a rawhide bone and getting its face ripped off is not something that should EVER be tolerated. Not EVER.


This is a false dichotomy. There is a WORLD of middle ground between dog that draws blood and dog that rips a baby's face off.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Nope... I take them exactly as your wrote them. IF you did not mean exactly what you said, then say so..
> 
> Since you have not... It seems pretty clear that you did not mean something else...
> 
> ...


I have lurked these forums for a good long time. I have read many posts from some of the more long standing members on here. 
You strike me as a man who believes himself always right. You talk yourself up constantly. You have an explanation for everything. You, apparently, imply horrible things about deceased old men that you've never met. You believe that the ACD is the world's toughest/most complex/most intelligent dog (only the best for you). You have a generally know-it-all, arrogant, smug attitude. 
You don't like what I believe? Fine. Disagree all you want. But implying my grandpa is some piece of s**t... just wow. That's low. And small. And petty.
I hope you prove whatever point it is that you're attempting to make. 
I don't have to say anything about you're manhood. You've already done a bang up job yourself. 
I'm over this thread as it is no longer relevant, nor educational.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> No you wouldn't. That is part of the interwebz reputation that you've created for yourself.
> Tough guy behind an Internet screen.
> I used him K N O W I N G him. Do you know him? Yes or no? That was not an implication? How not? Seriously?
> I could care less what you put stock in.



LOL.... I am outspoken, bold, have not much of a filter and say exactly what I think... And have been doing so since long before the internet was dreamed of. There are members he that know me personally....
They can tell you.

No I do not know your Grandpa.... You used him in example and I guess you hoped people would agree with you. But all I said is that for all I know he was mean to the dog. As you said it, I do NOT know him, how am I supposed to know if he is gentle and kind to animals? 
It is as if you want me to say, yep dog bit grandpa, put him down. But.... Again you said.... I do not know him.


----------



## Little Wise Owl (Nov 12, 2011)

This thread... I just can't even

Socorny, you are something else. lol I have little tolerance for aggressive dogs but this "IF IT BITES IT DIES" mentality is just... wow.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> I have lurked these forums for a good long time. I have read many posts from some of the more long standing members on here.
> You strike me as a man who believes himself always right. You talk yourself up constantly. You have an explanation for everything. You, apparently, imply horrible things about deceased old men that you've never met. You believe that the ACD is the world's toughest/most complex/most intelligent dog (only the best for you). You have a generally know-it-all, arrogant, smug attitude.
> You don't like what I believe? Fine. Disagree all you want. But implying my grandpa is some piece of s**t... just wow. That's low. And small. And petty.
> I hope you prove whatever point it is that you're attempting to make.
> ...


I do not care what you believe me to be....


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> I have lurked these forums for a good long time. I have read many posts from some of the more long standing members on here.
> You strike me as a man who believes himself always right. You talk yourself up constantly. You have an explanation for everything. You, apparently, imply horrible things about deceased old men that you've never met. You believe that the ACD is the world's toughest/most complex/most intelligent dog (only the best for you). You have a generally know-it-all, arrogant, smug attitude.
> You don't like what I believe? Fine. Disagree all you want. But implying my grandpa is some piece of s**t... just wow. That's low. And small. And petty.
> I hope you prove whatever point it is that you're attempting to make.
> ...


The hypocrisy is great! Have a nice day!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL.
"my grandpa totally killed dogs who bit him!!"
"so how do we know your grandpa wasn't mean to those dogs before they bit him?"
"how dare you bring up my wonderful grandpa!"
Snrk.

So we'll call him Fred. So Fred shot dogs who bit him (or whanged 'em over the head or whatever he did "out back"). How do we know Fred didn't deserve to be bitten? We don't. Cuz we don't know Fred. Just that he apparently killed a lot of dogs. I feel sorry for people like that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RCloud said:


> The hypocrisy is great! Have a nice day!


LOL I think her comments are funny.....

When she saw that folks were not going to agree with her and point out all of the holes in her opinion, well... We all see how she gets when that happens...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> LOL.
> "my grandpa totally killed dogs who bit him!!"
> "so how do we know your grandpa wasn't mean to those dogs before they bit him?"
> "how dare you bring up my wonderful grandpa!"
> ...


Great Post!!!!! 

When Willowy and I agree on something, the world is about to reverse its axis....


BTW... How was your trip to Florida?


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Willowy said:


> LOL.
> "my grandpa totally killed dogs who bit him!!"
> "so how do we know your grandpa wasn't mean to those dogs before they bit him?"
> "how dare you bring up my wonderful grandpa!"
> ...


DING DING DING! And we have a winner! XD


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> How was your trip to Florida?


Great! The little kids were overwhelmed by Disney but we grown-up kids had a blast. Let the kids go back to the hotel with Nana after a few hours, and then we went on all the good rides. It rained a lot, really heavy. I forgot my thermometer . Way fewer mosquitoes than here, but probably Disney and the resorts spray a lot. Went to the beach and my brothers were the palest guys there---we could pick them out of the crowd so easily . My cousin's boyfriend proposed (but we knew he was planning on it). Yep, a busy week.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Great! The little kids were overwhelmed by Disney but we grown-up kids had a blast. Let the kids go back to the hotel with Nana after a few hours, and then we went on all the good rides. It rained a lot, really heavy. I forgot my thermometer . Way fewer mosquitoes than here, but probably Disney and the resorts spray a lot. Went to the beach and my brothers were the palest guys there---we could pick them out of the crowd so easily . My cousin's boyfriend proposed (but we knew he was planning on it). Yep, a busy week.


I am sure disney has good mosquito control...... But I will say when I have been in Far northern States in the summer and there is moisture around the Skeeters are worse up there. We just have them most if not all year. And they are far worse in the swamps and woods than in town here.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

We're in NJ right now. The mosquitos and humidity are worse then when we were in New England. Ugh.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Great! The little kids were overwhelmed by Disney but we grown-up kids had a blast. Let the kids go back to the hotel with Nana after a few hours, and then we went on all the good rides. It rained a lot, really heavy. I forgot my thermometer . Way fewer mosquitoes than here, but probably Disney and the resorts spray a lot. Went to the beach and my brothers were the palest guys there---we could pick them out of the crowd so easily . My cousin's boyfriend proposed (but we knew he was planning on it). Yep, a busy week.


BTW the week you were here most of the bad weather stayed east, towards orlando.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

Willowy said:


> LOL.
> "my grandpa totally killed dogs who bit him!!"
> "so how do we know your grandpa wasn't mean to those dogs before they bit him?"
> "how dare you bring up my wonderful grandpa!"
> ...


Yes yes yes! Right on point.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Many, MANY dogs try to/will bite us at the vet. The amount of dogs that bite for getting nails clipped is high. Well, I guess we can just kill them all. Or we can accept that dogs are ANIMALS and sometimes bite in certain situations. Many biters can be saved with training/management. There ARE legitimate times to euth a dog for biting. Euth any dog that bites, ever for any reason? HAHAHA. That's the vast majority of dogs. I've been more injured by people being stupid than from dog bites.. and I've been bit by a lot of different dogs.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Just speculating: I'd guess the same traits that make a terrier or bull terrier "game" in the hunt result in a dogs that, should it turn on a person, is likely to attack in a sustained fashion rather than simply biting. Any dog can bite . .. . but few will keep biting once they snap. Is that true? If it is, how hard would it be to screen dogs for gameness? How old does a dog have to be before the trait can be measured (I assume that, like drive, it's not all or nothing, but a matter of some dogs being more game than others).

I suspect this is the crux of the pit bull problem. Many many dogs could potentially snap and bite someone. Usually this just results in a bite. A sustained attack by a dog that weighs tens of pounds is much more dangerous. Having the potential for sustained attack in dog populations that are widespread, and commonly owned by people without the skills, resources, and attitudes required to keep a dog under control is not a good thing. 

The only solution I can think of, and it is at best partial, is promotion of free spey neuter, especially in pit types . . . and improved temperament screening in shelters.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Pit Bulls aren't the only breed capable of the "bite hold shake" style of attack though. MANY other breeds are, some being stronger then the Pit Bull. All dogs have the potential to be dangerous.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

socorny said:


> I have my opinions. Which I have every right to express on this forum... as much right as you do. I don't ask you to agree with them or follow them.


Yup, you have a right to your opinions and to express them. And then everyone else has a right to their opinion ABOUT your opinions and to express them. If you're going to put it out there, people might express opinions about your opinions you don't like.

Nobody implied anything about your grandpa. Johnny said he doesn't know your grandpa and he doesn't know the circumstances of any bites he might have gotten. Which is a fair point, because a lot of people on the internet are lying liars. And yea, Johnny likes to be right. That doesn't mean he never is. 

I once got a nasty redirected bite from Pip stupidly sticking my hand in to break up a scuffle with one of the others. Definitely drew blood, but I don't think he even knew it was me he had bitten. I have a colleague who was presented with a dog to euthanize for biting a child in the home. As the technician was holding the dog, she felt something weird in its ear which turned out to be four staples. The dog waited until the kid stapled its ear the fifth time before it bit. I guess that's a crap dog for not tolerating almost anything, though, huh? 

The idea that either of these dogs should lose their lives or are automatically untrustworthy from now on because of human stupidity is just unfathomable to me. Or maybe I'm just stunned because I can hardly believe that Johnny, willowy, RCloud and I are all in agreement about something.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Or maybe I'm just stunned because I can hardly believe that Johnny, willowy, RCloud and I are all in agreement about something.


Right? I think the planets have aligned.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Or maybe I'm just stunned because I can hardly believe that Johnny, willowy, RCloud and I are all in agreement about something.


Never thought I'd see the day.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

What a bizarrely extreme point of view. A dog that malus somebody for looking at them the wrong way is a little bit different than a dog who breaks skin when you're breaking up a fight, taking a bone away from a resource guarder without training, or even just putting your hands in between two dogs playing rough. Any dog will bite if the circumstances call for it, so I agree with Johnny that such an extreme view is basically calling to ban all dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I actually do have one dog I think would never bite a human in any circumstance. I've had a lot of dogs and she is the only one. But then again Summer is just truly an exceptional dog. 

Most dogs though, they will bite in the right circumstances.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Wow this thread exploded over the weekend!

I'm just going to agree; anything with teeth has the potential to bite.

The opinion that you should kill any dog that bites is silly, short sighted, and dangerous, IMO.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> As Foresthund said, according to the pit bull people, a pit bull is only "game" if it is willing to fight to the death. They do not consider working ability or sports ability to be "game". I would consider my old Lab "game" in that she was willing to retrieve to the death (it's not a good trait in a pet dog :/) but the word has been co-opted by the dog fighters and those who admire dog fighters. It doesn't just refer to energy, drive, and grit, but specifically to death-fighting willingness. Check out just about any pit bull forum. Not hard to find, even I found them .


It's not just Pittie terriers where "gameness is used to describe a breeds willingness to "get in there", it's also used for hunting dogs and game terriers, it's no different then the word "grit" when applied to herding dogs.

Bear, my JRT has "game" and exhibits some of the same behavior to small prey animals and even cats as a pittie may with other dogs. ALL terriers possess gameness, it's not just pitties. So should we demonize all terriers? Or just some of them because they are bigger and can cause more damage? In fact I have seen a lot more JRTS with HA than I have pitties, but because they are small and cute, no one cares


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Everything that I said was absolutely twisted out of proportion. 
I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized. 
Then it turned into ALL dogs who bite. It turned into ALL dogs who draw blood. This is not what I have ever said. 
Some of the people on this forum really need to learn some reading comprehension skills. 
I stated that my grandpa shot dogs that attacked viciously enough to draw blood and cause moderate injury. That is synonymous with an animal beater? A guy who starves animals?.... only if you're crazy. 
Johnny attempted to make everything fit his Ultimate Point without concern for who it may offend or hurt. Whatever. He is THAT guy. This is what people with narcissistic tendencies do... hurt people in the name of "honesty".
I don't even know why I am dignifying any of this with a response as I know that you will all continue to misread and misquote. I KNOW this. 
ReREAD and tell me where I said these things?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Yup, you have a right to your opinions and to express them. And then everyone else has a right to their opinion ABOUT your opinions and to express them. If you're going to put it out there, people might express opinions about your opinions you don't like.
> 
> Nobody implied anything about your grandpa. Johnny said he doesn't know your grandpa and he doesn't know the circumstances of any bites he might have gotten. Which is a fair point, because a lot of people on the internet are lying liars. And yea, Johnny likes to be right. That doesn't mean he never is.
> 
> ...


That's why I hate little brats and parents who know nothing about dogs ... yeah ... people like that don't get anywhere near my dogs :/


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> That's why I hate little brats and parents who know nothing about dogs ... yeah ... people like that don't get anywhere near my dogs :/


I'm sure the parents are content with you keeping your dogs away from their little "brats".


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

socorny said:


> Everything that I said was absolutely twisted out of proportion.
> I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized.
> Then it turned into ALL dogs who bite. It turned into ALL dogs who draw blood. This is not what I have ever said.
> Some of the people on this forum really need to learn some reading comprehension skills.
> ...


If so many people are misunderstanding what you were trying to say, maybe you should reconsider whether you were being clear or not.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Willowy said:


> LOL.
> "my grandpa totally killed dogs who bit him!!"
> "so how do we know your grandpa wasn't mean to those dogs before they bit him?"
> "how dare you bring up my wonderful grandpa!"
> ...


My grandpa killed those dogs for a valid reason. Reasons I didn't exactly elaborate on. 
I never stated how many dogs he killed... where did I state "a lot"? 
You're the type of person that I truly abhor. I don't care if your coddling/anthropomorphizing/humanizing affects only you... I just sure hope it doesn't affect anyone else in your neighbourhood.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

socorny said:


> Everything that I said was absolutely twisted out of proportion.
> I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized.


If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen . . . and out of debates about dog attacks and other heated topics. I'm pretty new to this forum, but from experience on other forums, statements like the one you made are like the mythological 'red flag' that draws the bull (if not the bull, at least a lot of BS).
I kinda agree, in hindsight the old fashioned bullet to the head seems like an elegant solution for dogs who cross the line. But where the hell is the line?
I have problems with your use of the term HUMAN AGGRESSIVE. I suspect there are dogs who have maimed or killed people without being truly human aggressive . . . just something triggered a switch and they turned on someone. You can't go shooting every dog who has a trigger that might get switched.
I also have problems with the phrase 'intention of doing serious harm'. I don't think dogs' brains are capable of intentions of this sort. It's hard enough for courts of law to prove intent for criminals . . . hopeless for dogs.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

ireth0 said:


> If so many people are misunderstanding what you were trying to say, maybe you should reconsider whether you were being clear or not.


I was pretty damn clear. It is not my fault if people read partially, read halfway, only read what other people say and comment because of that. I have repeated myself SO MANY times. 
People don't want to hear "in my opinion, your man biting/crap dog should be euthanized to betterment the safety of your family and/or the general public". Of course not! It's a hard pill to swallow...
It's just easy after this type of commentary to pick out who is the zealot dog owner (irrational) and who is a normal dog owner.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

socorny said:


> I was pretty damn clear. It is not my fault if people read partially, read halfway, only read what other people say and comment because of that. I have repeated myself SO MANY times.
> People don't want to hear "in my opinion, your man biting/crap dog should be euthanized to betterment the safety of your family and/or the general public". Of course not! It's a hard pill to swallow...
> It's just easy after this type of commentary to pick out who is the zealot dog owner (irrational) and who is a normal dog owner.


From what I understood, you said that in most cases, a dog who bites hard enough to draw blood should be put down, end of story. 

I don't agree with that, nor do, apparently, the majority of the people of this forum.

There are SO many things to consider beyond just the fact that the dog bit hard enough to draw blood. And SO many things that you as an owner can do to prevent the situation from happening again.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

sandgrubber said:


> If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen . . . and out of debates about dog attacks and other heated topics. I'm pretty new to this forum, but from experience on other forums, statements like the one you made are like the mythological 'red flag' that draws the bull (if not the bull, at least a lot of BS).
> I kinda agree, in hindsight the old fashioned bullet to the head seems like an elegant solution for dogs who cross the line. But where the hell is the line?
> I have problems with your use of the term HUMAN AGGRESSIVE. I suspect there are dogs who have maimed or killed people without being truly human aggressive . . . just something switch a trigger and they turned on someone. You can't go shooting every dog who has a trigger that might get switched.
> I also have problems with the phrase 'intention of doing serious harm'. I don't think dogs' brains are capable of intentions of this sort. It's hard enough for courts of law to prove intent for criminals . . . hopeless for dogs.


 When did I say I couldn't stand the heat? I just can't stand when people cannot read for the life of them. 
There are dogs who are just nut cases. There are also dogs who give clue after clue, they give off obvious warnings that something VERY bad will happen under the right (or wrong) circumstances. 
Intention- when a dog is lunging, snapping, hackling, and attempting to attack with everything in its power. It is a pretty obvious thing in most dogs (although some are very quiet).


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

RCloud said:


> Right? I think the planets have aligned.


I assumed that it would be more likely that all the planets would align, then all of you agreeing on something.  I I have to agree with you, too.


socorny said:


> Everything that I said was absolutely twisted out of proportion.
> I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized.
> Then it turned into ALL dogs who bite. It turned into ALL dogs who draw blood. This is not what I have ever said.
> Some of the people on this forum really need to learn some reading comprehension skills.
> ...


I mean, really? You seem to criticize almost everyone in this thread.

Maybe I misread, but, there are so many people disagreeing with your view points. Maybe,you didn't come across like everyone interpreted, but it seems like it, just not to me, but, to many others. 

One more thing.We all have the right to our own view points,& opinions,& so do you. I don't think anyone here is saying that you can't have opinion.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

ireth0 said:


> From what I understood, you said that in most cases, a dog who bites hard enough to draw blood should be put down, end of story.
> 
> I don't agree with that, nor do, apparently, the majority of the people of this forum.
> 
> There are SO many things to consider beyond just the fact that the dog bit hard enough to draw blood. And SO many things that you as an owner can do to prevent the situation from happening again.


 Key word- MOST. Can you not see this word even when you wrote it out physically yourself? 
For me, there isn't much to consider. It just depends on the SITUATION.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

socorny said:


> Key word- MOST. Can you not see this word even when you wrote it out physically yourself?
> For me, there isn't much to consider. It just depends on the SITUATION.


I saw it and I don't agree.

I believe that in MOST cases, the dog bit for a reason and in MOST cases the issue can be resolved. In a FEW cases the dog could be genuinely mentally unstable, but MOST of the time that isn't the case.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JazzyTheSiberian said:


> I assumed that it would be more likely that all the planets would align, then all of you agreeing on something.  I I have to agree with you, too.
> 
> I mean, really? You seem to criticize almost everyone in this thread.
> 
> ...


Who did I criticize? Johnny? Because he judged a man he never met? Yes, I judged the hell out of that.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

socorny said:


> I was pretty damn clear. It is not my fault if people read partially, read halfway, only read what other people say and comment because of that. I have repeated myself SO MANY times.
> People don't want to hear "in my opinion, your man biting/crap dog should be euthanized to betterment the safety of your family and/or the general public". Of course not! It's a hard pill to swallow...
> It's just easy after this type of commentary to pick out who is the zealot dog owner (irrational) and who is a normal dog owner.


It seems that quite a few of your posts come down to "if people could just read" or "people aren't reading what I am saying". Have you stopped to consider that the problem may not be with the majority of the community and their "inability to read" but with you and your ability to express yourself or perhaps that many members of the community just don't agree with your opinion?


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

ireth0 said:


> I saw it and I don't agree.
> 
> I believe that in MOST cases, the dog bit for a reason and in MOST cases the issue can be resolved. In a FEW cases the dog could be genuinely mentally unstable, but MOST of the time that isn't the case.


 That is your opinion. You have the right to it. 
It still doesn't change that everyone on here is arguing something that I didn't say... now that you have it right we are at a stalemate and that's just fine.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized.
> Then it turned into ALL dogs who bite. It turned into ALL dogs who draw blood. This is not what I have ever said.


You said my cattle dog should be put to sleep when he was resource guarding me from my husband. My dog isn't human aggressive in any sense of the word. He was resource guarding me. There's an enormous difference, and dogs with resource guarding issues can be rehabilitated/maintained, such as was the case with him, and it's scary to think if he had been your dog, he'd be dead right now when there's absolutely nothing wrong with him. So yeah, you DID say any dog that bites and draws blood should be euthanized.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

Remaru said:


> It seems that quite a few of your posts come down to "if people could just read" or "people aren't reading what I am saying". Have you stopped to consider that the problem may not be with the majority of the community and their "inability to read" but with you and your ability to express yourself or perhaps that many members of the community just don't agree with your opinion?


I stated in very obvious brackets and capital letters (in MOST situations). How is that a communication problem on MY part?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> Everythinit.that I said was absolutely twisted out of proportion.
> I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized.
> Then it turned into ALL dogs who bite. It turned into ALL dogs who draw blood. This is not what I have ever said.
> Some of the people on this forum really need to learn some reading comprehension skills.
> ...



Lol actually your statement was clear the first time. When EVERYONE that responded you are the one that started twisting things In an effort to prove yourself correct. We ALL did not misread your statements. 

I on the other hand stayed in an arrow straight line. 

You attacked me because I followed your lead and used your gandfather in responding to your example. I never insulted you or your grandfather. I said for all I know he was mean to the dog. You seemingly had hoped that others would immediately condemn the dog in your example. But no one was prepared to do that. You give a vague example and expected everyone to assume it was the dog's fault. No one did and now you are mad over it. I cannot say anything in an attempt to be hurtful. If you have lurked as you say you have, then you would know I am very direct. You reacted to that by calling me an internet tough guy. and you can take it or leave it
But I am the same way in person. Those that know me away from this forum can attest to that. 

No one mix read or misquoted. You simply continue to change your story. 
And narcissistic tendencies. I LOVE that. You give me a laugh with every post.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

RCloud said:


> You said my cattle dog should be put to sleep when he was resource guarding me from my husband. My dog isn't human aggressive in any sense of the word. He was resource guarding me. There's an enormous difference, and dogs with resource guarding issues can be rehabilitated/maintained, such as was the case with him, and it's scary to think if he had been your dog, he'd be dead right now when there's absolutely nothing wrong with him. So yeah, you DID say any dog that bites and draws blood should be euthanized.


I said that I would euthanize in that situation. Yes. I would. Because I love my husband.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

socorny said:


> I stated in very obvious brackets and capital letters (in MOST situations). How is that a communication problem on MY part?


People are telling you they still don't agree and you seem to fail to get it. Sounds like an issue on your part. The fact that you continue to insult people and their reading comprehension just makes me question anything you have to say. This is not the only thread you have acted this way on, in fact it is pretty much the way you behave across the board.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

socorny said:


> Everything that I said was absolutely twisted out of proportion.
> I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized.
> Then it turned into ALL dogs who bite. It turned into ALL dogs who draw blood. This is not what I have ever said.
> Some of the people on this forum really need to learn some reading comprehension skills.
> ...





socorny said:


> HA man biters. Yes I am absolutely suggesting it and advocating it.
> When a dog went "nuts" and bit my old timey grandpa, it was taken out back. *When a dog bit and drew blood after resource guarding, it was taken out back. *
> There were strict standards. They should still be.


 





socorny said:


> My dog has an ideal life. I have her because I love her.
> * If she bit someone (in MOST situations) I would do the right thing and have her euthanized by a professional. *She would go peacefully and momentarily. I'm willing to do this because I value human life over dog life.
> You enjoy your dog, just keep it away from... everyone.





socorny said:


> Boy oh boy! We'd better assume the worst. My grandpa was an animal beatin', animal starvin' with the intelligence of a bowling ball.
> He respected and loved his dogs. Always fed them even when very poor.
> My grandpa was a stand up fellow. Honest. Hardworking. Just didn't tolerate any crap from his animals at any time.
> 
> ...





socorny said:


> Do you have a point? Or is this self soothing behaviour?
> *You own a man biter. That's fine if you want to tolerate it. I don't want to tolerate it.* The GP doesn't want to tolerate it. Leave it at home.


 
YOU turned it from "HUMAN AGGRESSIVE dogs that have intention of doing serious harm" to resource guarders, "man biters", drawing blood, and biting people. YOU. You are all over the board in this thread and don't seem to be able to even keep track of what you yourself have said. And at the same time you are backpedaling on your own statements, you accuse Johnny of saying things he never said. Quote where he actually accused your grandfather of anything.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Lol actually your statement was clear the first time. When EVERYONE that responded you are the one that started twisting things In an effort to prove yourself correct. We ALL did not misread your statements.
> 
> I on the other hand stayed in an arrow straight line.
> 
> ...


You are just SOOO full of yourself. I'm sure that everyone has also noticed this. I'm not the only one thinking it, just the only one saying it. And I actually WOULD say that to your face (if you actually acted like this in real life, which you most likely don't) in real life. 
I knew my grandpa, so I used his culling dogs as an example. You used him by insinuating that he was a horrible person because it fit your point.... while not ever having met him.
I have been making very clear points. All one would have to do is read back from the start and they would understand. This has gotten people worked up (understandably) so they don't wish to give me that benefit of the doubt. 
I have never once changed my story. Quote me and show me where I have. 
You discuss god fighting as if that is one thing that made APBT's great. What about culling? My grandpa "culled" the dogs that injured him. I don't see why he is an animal beating/animal starving beast.


----------



## socorny (Jun 24, 2014)

sassafras said:


> YOU turned it from "HUMAN AGGRESSIVE dogs that have intention of doing serious harm" to resource guarders, "man biters", drawing blood, and biting people. YOU. You are all over the board in this thread and don't seem to be able to even keep track of what you yourself have said. And at the same time you are backpedaling on your own statements, you accuse Johnny of saying things he never said. Quote where he actually accused your grandfather of anything.


Ok. HUMAN AGGRESSIVE MAN BITERS. does it take a really high iq to combine those two things together? Why do you all need your hands held all of the time?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

socorny said:


> Ok. HUMAN AGGRESSIVE MAN BITERS. does it take a really high iq to combine those two things together? Why do you all need your hands held all of the time?


A dog that bit someone (what I presume you mean by 'man biter) and a dog that is HA are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> Who did I criticize? Johnny? Because he judged a man he never met? Yes, I judged the hell out of that.


I judged no one. You wanted me to accept that he is a kind gentle man. I do not know him. You are the one that turned it into an insult. Not me. 

Speaking of judging. You are pretty quick to judge people you do not know. For what? Because they disagree with your statements. The fact that you have spent two pages trying to turn me in to the bad guy over your statements is priceless.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

socorny said:


> Ok. HUMAN AGGRESSIVE MAN BITERS. does it take a really high iq to combine those two things together? Why do you all need your hands held all of the time?


Resource guarders are human aggressive man biters? 

You can't cry foul because people "twist" your intent into including "all dogs who bite," and then throw around the term "man biter" to exclusively mean seriously human aggressive dogs. Any dog who has bitten a person is a man biter. If you've really lurked around this forum for a long time you should know that RCloud's dog is not human aggressive.

It's not the world's obligation to understand your own private definition of a term and know when what you SAY is different than what you MEAN.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

socorny said:


> My grandpa killed those dogs for a valid reason. Reasons I didn't exactly elaborate on.
> I never stated how many dogs he killed... where did I state "a lot"?
> You're the type of person that I truly abhor. I don't care if your coddling/anthropomorphizing/humanizing affects only you... I just sure hope it doesn't affect anyone else in your neighbourhood.


 I'm fairly sure you're the sort of person I truly abhor. At least judging by things you've said on this forum. So I guess we're even. 

And, well, in order to set a precedence for what happened to resource guarders/aggressive dogs under your grandfathers care, it would have to be a fair amount :/. At least 4 or 5 before a precedence is truly set, I would think. At least 2, if it was known he killed resource guarders AND aggressive dogs, and at least 1 more of each to be sure that's what he did. Well, that's a lot more dogs than I hope I kill in my lifetime.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

socorny said:


> I said that I would euthanize in that situation. Yes. I would. Because I love my husband.


I do to, that doesn't mean we don't love our dogs and aren't willing to work things out when bumps in the road arise. And if you'd have been willing to just "take him out back" like good ol' grand pappy taught you back in the day, over a situation like that, then yeah, you would be killing a dog for essentially no reason other then conveniance.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

A dog can give an inhibited bite and still draw some blood while resource guarding. That's a dog that can be easily worked with, and if I was married and my husband killed a dog for a bite like that in the name of love, I'd have some serious problems with that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

socorny said:


> You are just SOOO full of yourself. I'm sure that everyone has also noticed this. I'm not the only one thinking it, just the only one saying it. And I actually WOULD say that to your face (if you actually acted like this in real life, which you most likely don't) in real life.
> I knew my grandpa, so I used his culling dogs as an example. You used him by insinuating that he was a horrible person because it fit your point.... while not ever having met him.
> I have been making very clear points. All one would have to do is read back from the start and they would understand. This has gotten people worked up (understandably) so they don't wish to give me that benefit of the doubt.
> I have never once changed my story. Quote me and show me where I have.
> You discuss god fighting as if that is one thing that made APBT's great. What about culling? My grandpa "culled" the dogs that injured him. I don't see why he is an animal beating/animal starving beast.



I never said your grandfather was an animal beating/starving beast. You keep saying that not me. Regardless of what you or others think I am or am not. You are alone in your opinions on this. Keep making me the bad guy. I have zero issue with being the bad guy. 

As for saying things to my face I have doubt's you are in enough control of your emotions to have such a discussion face to face.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Oop. The ban button has been hit.


----------



## Eenypup (Mar 21, 2014)

socorny said:


> Who did I criticize? Johnny? Because he judged a man he never met? Yes, I judged the hell out of that.


Are you serious? You have been spending the past few pages judging so many people you haven't met. You're assuming things about RCloud's love for her husband and judging her on that, which you don't actually know anything about. You're judging Johnny's entire character based on a few internet posts. You seem to be judging anyone who owns a less than 100% bombproof under any and all circumstances dog for owning a "HA manbiter!!11!" 

You're just a huge hypocrite arguing yourself in circles for no reason.

EDIT: Too late! Posted just as the ban happened.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

LoMD13 said:


> A dog can give an inhibited bite and still draw some blood while resource guarding. That's a dog that can be easily worked with, and if I was married and my husband killed a dog for a bite like that in the name of love, I'd have some serious problems with that.


Yup, same here. My husband was VERY adamant and willing to work things out. He grew up on a farm in Montana around countless animals, so he's got a lot of love and respect for dogs as well as a good grasp on animal behavior. I wouldn't have been the women he married if I just killed Ma'ii over something so petty and stupid.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

LoMD13 said:


> A dog can give an inhibited bite and still draw some blood while resource guarding. That's a dog that can be easily worked with, and if I was married and my husband killed a dog for a bite like that in the name of love, I'd have some serious problems with that.


Well, I'd only have one big problem and I'd put him behind me pretty quick when I didn't let the door hit me in the bee-hind on my way out.


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

socorny said:


> Who did I criticize? Johnny? Because he judged a man he never met? Yes, I judged the hell out of that.


No, not just him, you have criticized other people. You've criticized sassafras. RCloud. & others.

No one, has twisted your opinion.

ETA: Nevermind.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> . Or maybe I'm just stunned because I can hardly believe that Johnny, willowy, RCloud and I are all in agreement about something.


 All I know this is a sure sign the zombie apocalypse is coming.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> All I know this is a sure sign the zombie apocalypse is coming.


Should we... start fighting about something?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I feel this calls for...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Lol that was interesting. :/


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Should we... start fighting about something?


Once they start coming ...

We need to call the doomsday preppers!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Should we... start fighting about something?


Lol give it a minute. I am sure some of us will find Something.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

We're officially changing Ma'ii's name to "Man Biter". I think he likes it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sandgrubber said:


> Just speculating: I'd guess the same traits that make a terrier or bull terrier "game" in the hunt result in a dogs that, should it turn on a person, is likely to attack in a sustained fashion rather than simply biting. Any dog can bite . .. . but few will keep biting once they snap. Is that true? If it is, how hard would it be to screen dogs for gameness? How old does a dog have to be before the trait can be measured (I assume that, like drive, it's not all or nothing, but a matter of some dogs being more game than others).
> 
> I suspect this is the crux of the pit bull problem. Many many dogs could potentially snap and bite someone. Usually this just results in a bite. A sustained attack by a dog that weighs tens of pounds is much more dangerous. Having the potential for sustained attack in dog populations that are widespread, and commonly owned by people without the skills, resources, and attitudes required to keep a dog under control is not a good thing.
> 
> The only solution I can think of, and it is at best partial, is promotion of free spey neuter, especially in pit types . . . and improved temperament screening in shelters.


Back on subject... I do not see any correlation between gameness and seriousness of attacks on humans. 

In any case, you raise a good question. But It would not work. Very few shelter and rescue workers would be knowledgeable enough on the matter to know what they were seeing. Adding to that very few of the pits and pit mixes I have seen in shelters are truly game. And it is HARD to test an adult dog safely. 

Anyone that knows what they are looking for and wants a game bred dog for good or bad reasons, is going to go to a breeder of a line known to having game dogs. And they are not cheap. At least good ones are not. 

I used to do a fair amount with a couple of different pit rescues. I never saw a dog in rescue that I thought was really game. I never was in favor of homing rescues out to hog hunters. I know a few guys that tried to make hog dogs out of rescues. Most did not work out. I am in no way saying the rescue pits are not great dogs. They are. just very few are game. 

That being said... The only three dogs I have owned in my life that I would consider bulletproof were game bred Pits. (The first one was actually one of my Dad's dogs but "stole" him.) I DID have one Pit that was a tad on the edgy side. Not to me, but he worried me a bit with other people. I was careful with him. I started riding in the hunting buggy with grandaddy and or dad at five or so. Maybe a tad younger.. Or sitting on the back of Grandaddy's horse. I caught my first hog at 8 with Runt that I "stole" from my dad. In those over forty years of watching and 39 years of actually catching, I have yet to have been bitten by a catch dog. I have also yet to see someone else get bit. Hog hunting with dogs is a group activity. At least most often. I have done it alone with my dogs but it is better with a group of people. You might have some good bay dogs but no catch dog, this other might have a jam up catch dog but no bay dogs. Or a guy might have one or two of each. It is better and safer for the dogs if you have multiple people that know what they are doing and multiple catch dogs. Hogs live and travel in groups called Sounders. A sounder usually is a sow and a sister or two and their offspring. Mature boars leave the sounders and go off in groups of two or three. When they become dominant they are loners. The boars then mingle with the sounders for breeding. Sometimes the bay dogs will bay up as many as four sometimes more hogs at once. So it helps to have more catch dogs. When you get the hogs bayed up the faster you get the catch dogs to work the safer it is for the bay dogs. And if you bay up a good sized boar it is better to send in more than one catch dog. Safer for the dogs and you. 

What ends up happening is other people end up handling your catch dog and you end up handling other peoples catch dogs. I have probably pulled 50 or 60 different dogs that I did not own, off of hogs in my life. I have yet to have one try to bite me. It seems like it would be SO easy for redirected aggression to happen and have one latch hold of your leg. Heck I have grabbed dogs that I had never seen before the hunt. I have not owned a catch dog of my own, since about 1995 and go catch hogs all the time. ( I have not been at all this year but I was in poor health and had surgery. But in the fall my butt will be in the woods. ) So all the dogs I handle are not mine. And youg get your hands up in their face, pick the dog off, pry them off etc. And they just go with it. 

I do know people that have been torn up bad by catch dogs. But not while I was with them. And there are people that think mean and aggressive makes a good catch dog. And some people use other breeds. I know one guy that an Airdale opened up his femoral artery and he nearly bled out before they could get him out of the woods. I know another guy that got put in the hospital by an American Bulldog Shar Pei cross. I won't hunt with people that have dogs I consider mean or unstable. I have on occasion hunted with people with other breeds of catch dogs. I am not in love with the idea though. Since when I hunt it is usually me that has the invite to hunt a property or am specifically ask if I will work on the hog population of a tract, I tend to get to pick and choose. I prefer to hunt with dogs I know or know who's lines they came from.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Well that was a fun and crazy read for my first visit back in a while 

Johnny ...forgot how much I missed you well informed and well written posts


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

socorny said:


> Everything that I said was absolutely twisted out of proportion.
> I said that *HUMAN AGGRESSIVE* dogs that have intention of doing serious harm (you don't need a dog to bite to know what I'm referring to) need to be euthanized.
> Then it turned into ALL dogs who bite. It turned into ALL dogs who draw blood. This is not what I have ever said.
> Some of the people on this forum really need to learn some reading comprehension skills.
> I stated that my grandpa shot dogs that attacked viciously enough to draw blood and cause moderate injury. That is synonymous with an animal beater? A guy who starves animals?.... only if you're crazy.


My dog became aggressive to me after she had a seizure. I will not be putting her down...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Several people reverenced one posters term, Man Biters. 

It seemed to me that most folks have not heard that term before. It might be circumstance and the poster came up with that term on her own. 

But that is a term I have heard and am familiar with. I started to bring it up last night. But the poster in question was already accusing me of insulting her grandpa because I said I had not idea if he was nice to dogs or not. 

To my knowledge that term is only used in one specific circle of people. And the poster that originally posted it, would not like the place that term is used.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Several people reverenced one posters term, Man Biters.
> 
> It seemed to me that most folks have not heard that term before. It might be circumstance and the poster came up with that term on her own.
> 
> ...



I'm familiar with the term and knows where it comes from, too. :/


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> I'm familiar with the term and knows where it comes from, too. :/


I figured a few might.... Most will not have been exposed to it.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

i haven't been "exposed" to it but i understand what you're talking about, it's not hard to figure out


----------

