# Rant:Some pit bull people



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I am having an argument with a Pit bull person, the original post was about a child getting their foot caught in a dogs choke chain, and the owner could not separate them, the dog was struggling a lot to breathe and ended up biting the kid probably panicking cause it can't breathe...
Dude is commenting
"You can make all the excuses in the world but your dog bit a human no way around it I could go out to my yard to any one of my dogs and cut the front legs off and they would do nothing but wag they're tail thinking its a game
This is the difference between real american pit bull terriers and what every one else calls pit bulls the real apbt would stand and let you do anything not make a noise or aggressive move"

I am trying to explain than any dog including REAL PIT BULLS can and will bite in a life threatening situation and no dog would just stand their and let it's LEGS GET CUT OFF and do nothing, but he just keeps insisting NOOOO NOT A REAL PIT BULL.. Like wtf is wrong with people, are Pit bulls not allowed to have the WILL TO LIVE???

"And than he says "m against bsl but im all for killing mutts I hate peta but not for all the animals it kills becuz of the lies they use to do it and this is an example of why I would never have anything but a game bred dog around my kid or famliy I think its great people want to adopt and give a dog another chance but man biters and shit eater should be destroyed
would bet my life no dog on my yard would act aggressively towards humans in any situation"

-_-


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I am trying to explain than any dog including REAL PIT BULLS can and will bite in a life threatening situation and no dog would just stand their and let it's LEGS GET CUT OFF and do nothing, but he just keeps insisting NOOOO NOT A REAL PIT BULL.. Like wtf is wrong with people, are Pit bulls not allowed to have the WILL TO LIVE???


No. Dogs are living, breathing teddy bears who should take any amount of abuse without so much as flinching. They were put on earth to be our toys, and nothing more.

Apparently.


----------



## Melle (Aug 9, 2013)

Always irked me how people take a breed's ideal temperament and think it excuses it from normal instinctive behaviors in certain situations. Especially with pit bull people.

I jumped into the pit bull world and jumped right the heck back out because I still can just never find a medium in the community.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Um. Yeah he sounds like a real winner. I feel sorry for his dogs . Scumbag waste of oxygen. Bet he fights his dogs too.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Um. Yeah he sounds like a real winner. I feel sorry for his dogs . Scumbag waste of oxygen. Bet he fights his dogs too.


That is a huge jump to make, but no i don't think he fights his dogs, none of them are conditioned and don't have a mark on them, also has pictures of his dogs playing together.. Hate when people jump right to dog fighter....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Anyone who talks (admiringly) about game bred pit bulls at least supports fighting, that's just sort of The Way Things Are *shrug*. No other way to see it really.

Basically, those kinds of people want to feel free to abuse their dogs as they wish, then want to feel like there's something wrong with the dog if he/she defends him/herself, so they can feel justified in killing the dog, in whatever manner they wish. No point arguing with them. They feel like the only worth to an animal is how much it amuses them. No respect for life at all.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

The lie of the pit bull community is that the old fighting dogs never bit. That's total bs. A lot of often bred winners were known as man biters and no one cared because they won. There never was honor in dog fighting, no matter how they romanticize the " dog men."


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Anyone who talks about game bred pit bulls at least supports fighting, that's just sort of The Way Things Are *shrug*. No other way to see it really.
> 
> Basically, those kinds of people want to feel free to abuse their dogs as they wish, then want to feel like there's something wrong with the dog if he/she defends him/herself, so they can feel justified in killing the dog, in whatever manner they wish. No point arguing with them.


 Uhmm no not anyone who talks about game bred pit bulls supports fighting, i talk about game dogs all the time and i am absolutely against dog fighting, his dogs are actually "game line" and not game bred. And if you own a APBT it is from GAME LINES how are you suppose to avoid talking about game lines when that is what makes up your BREED as a whole??? I TALK ABOUT READ ABOUT AND DRAW GAME DOGS but i have never once fought a dog/been to a dog fight/ or supported dog fighting in any way


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Amaryllis said:


> The lie of the pit bull community is that the old fighting dogs never bit. That's total bs. A lot of often bred winners were known as man biters and no one cared because they won. There never was honor in dog fighting, no matter how they romanticize the " dog men."


I also brought that up, and he was said "And it is a taboo for the man biter to not be culled and the man biter are few and far between because of the need to be able to handle these dogs more so then any other breed you know dam well most dog man dID not put up with a man biter and only did on a few occasions because the dog was an ace"


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I did change it to say speaking "admiringly" of it. Because, um, yeah, if you talk about it admiringly you're saying it was good? Sorry, I can't see it any other way. Someone who hates something doesn't go on and on about how great it was.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I did change it to say speaking "admiringly" of it. Because, um, yeah, if you talk about it admiringly you're saying it was good? Sorry, I can't see it any other way. Someone who hates something doesn't go on and on about how great it was.


I am well aware that there is a decent amount of people in the APBT community who may very well fight their dogs if it was legal/wish it was legal. It just bothers me how _some_ people assume anyone who is into APBTS, or likes/posts about game dogs or owns a game line dog is a dog fighter or would be if it was legal. Me and a lot of my friends do ADMIRE game dogs, the same as one may admire gladiators, but that does not mean we believe that it has a place in the world today.Those dogs created my breed, so yes i read about them, draw them, and may post a thing or two about them, but that doesn't mean i get my rocks of watching dogs tear each other apart. I mean heck i can barely step on a bug without feeling bad/guilty .


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I guess I can't see it as having a place in any time, except as a warning example of how cruel humans are to animals and each other :/. Same with gladiators. Nothing to admire, IMO. Just horrible history to learn from and avoid. Like slavery and eugenics.

But anyway! People like that = bad people. Don't waste time arguing with idiots.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> I guess I can't see it as having a place in any time, except as a warning example of how cruel humans are to animals and each other :/. Same with gladiators. Nothing to admire, IMO. Just horrible history to learn from and avoid. Like slavery and eugenics.
> 
> But anyway! People like that = bad people. Don't waste time arguing with idiots.


I admire the will to survive i suppose, and that drive is what created the APBT if dog fighting never happened i wouldn't have the breed, was it wrong? SURE, but i can't say i wish it never happened, if it didn't we wouldn't have all the beautiful dogs we see today


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Eh, well, I guess I can't understand that. I would rather not have a breed now than make them suffer through a vicious history. I definitely wish that never happened . It makes me so depressed to think of all the horrible suffering (and especially since they suffered for no better reason than amusing a bunch of cruel, sick-minded individuals).


----------



## Raspberri (Aug 14, 2014)

Let's face it, that person commenting doesn't sound like s/he has much brain cells left to use anyway.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Anyone who talks (admiringly) about game bred pit bulls at least supports fighting, that's just sort of The Way Things Are *shrug*. No other way to see it really.
> 
> Basically, those kinds of people want to feel free to abuse their dogs as they wish, then want to feel like there's something wrong with the dog if he/she defends him/herself, so they can feel justified in killing the dog, in whatever manner they wish. No point arguing with them. They feel like the only worth to an animal is how much it amuses them. No respect for life at all.


You are WRONG.... SO WRONG....

I often speak admiringly about game bred pit bull terriers..... 

And I have put my LIFE at risk to get some dog fighters convicted... I am not talking beaten up, sued, etc I am talking face down in a hole in a swamp, bullet in the back of my head risk... 

game and fighting are TWO different things...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Let's unite and agree that some of the hard-core APBT people are just bananaballs.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Let's unite and agree that some of the hard-core APBT people are just bananaballs.


I can agree with that


----------



## stafinois (Jun 16, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Let's unite and agree that some of the hard-core APBT people are just bananaballs.



This. There is a lot of fanboy romanticism in the breed and it's pretty nauseating.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

The person you're dealing with will never see reason. I hate to say it, but they're utterly stupid. Not just ignorant, but foolish.

Just let them wallow in their make-believe little fantasy land where "real pitbulls" are like some kind of benevolent children of the gods who play with unicorns in the candy forest. As the book of Proverbs says multiple times, stay away from fools. They aren't good for you.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Anyone who talks (admiringly) about game bred pit bulls at least supports fighting, that's just sort of The Way Things Are *shrug*. No other way to see it really.
> 
> Basically, those kinds of people want to feel free to abuse their dogs as they wish, then want to feel like there's something wrong with the dog if he/she defends him/herself, so they can feel justified in killing the dog, in whatever manner they wish. No point arguing with them. They feel like the only worth to an animal is how much it amuses them. No respect for life at all.


You are completely WRONG. I find the APBT history highly interesting and enjoy reading about dog fighting of the past and about the dogs of the past. It's interesting to me to see where the breed came from, how things actually were, and how the dogs we have today were chosen. I like listening to old Dogmen talk about the past because you can learn so much as to why your dog does what it does. Do I agree with dog fighting at all? NO! I'd turn in someone fighting their dogs so fast their heads would spin. People seem to like to ignore the past instead of learning from it. My dogs came from dogs who liked to fight. It's in their blood and to deny that is like denying that a Cattle Dog was bred to herd. It helps me understand the breed, my breed, why they are who they are, how they became the way they are today, and how to preserve the breed's positive traits while moving away from the more negative traits.



Amaryllis said:


> The lie of the pit bull community is that the old fighting dogs never bit. That's total bs. A lot of often bred winners were known as man biters and no one cared because they won. There never was honor in dog fighting, no matter how they romanticize the " dog men."


You can normally tell who are rescue nuts over those who understand the breed. It doesn't take much research to find that two of the top dogs of the past were known to be man biters: Zebo and Chinaman. You do have to understand how breeding goes though, more so back in those days. If your dog had everything and only had one flaw, you bred that dog to a dog that didn't have that flaw and hoped for the best. I know Chinaman threw out manbiters, not sure of Zebo. Overall though, man biters were culled because back in those days, sadly, if that dog bit someone, they were culled right in the pit. Man biters were looked down upon. So yes we shouldn't deny there was man biters but overall the breed didn't have many. Even today though, people breed their dogs that are known to be human aggressive and think that's OK to do. Well simply put it isn't and that's one thing good breeders today have really pushed for. 

As for the OP, that person just doesn't quite have a grasp on reality. I've noticed that more and more lately. Peanut wouldn't dream of biting someone, however if she's in pain, you better have a muzzle on her because she'll nab you. Nubs you could chop his leg off and he'd still lick you. It's important to know your dog and understand that dogs are just dogs no matter the breed. APBT's are a pretty freaking cool breed that are fantastic but in the end they are DOGS.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> You can normally tell who are rescue nuts over those who understand the breed.


It's not the rescue nuts who use the term "man-biters" and think all "curs" and "man-biters" and mutts should be "culled". Even if the bite is fully justified, they're totally adamant that no biting should ever be tolerated. Seriously, _these are not the rescue nuts_.


----------



## doggiepop (Feb 27, 2014)

you should let your dogs attack him. i'll bring Loki to help out. sometimes you have to walk away
from conversations. don't talk about dogs with this person.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> It's not the rescue nuts who use the term "man-biters" and think all "curs" and "man-biters" and mutts should be "culled". Even if the bite is fully justified, they're totally adamant that no biting should ever be tolerated. Seriously, _these are not the rescue nuts_.


Yea, the "rescue nuts" think no dog should ever be euthanized for a bite no matter how unjustified because every dog can be rehabilitated.


----------



## stafinois (Jun 16, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Yea, the "rescue nuts" think no dog should ever be euthanized for a bite no matter how unjustified because every dog can be rehabilitated.



I keep looking for a Like or Upvote button. Forums are hard.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> No. Dogs are living, breathing teddy bears who should take any amount of abuse without so much as flinching. They were put on earth to be our toys, and nothing more.
> 
> Apparently.


Yeah that is the reason so many people think it's on to just accost a strangers dog without asking, pit bull or not. Just today there was a woman selling puppies at the flea market we were at, and some kid just came up (WITH her mom mind you) and just picked one of them up (NOT correctly) without even asking! The lady selling them took the puppy back and told the kid not to touch. I took the opportunity to tell both of them that they should always ask first.

Yeesh ... some people are just stupid!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I did change it to say speaking "admiringly" of it. Because, um, yeah, if you talk about it admiringly you're saying it was good? Sorry, I can't see it any other way. Someone who hates something doesn't go on and on about how great it was.


Gameness is an Admirable trait.......


And this statement....
Of ALL the screwed up, skewed things you have said over the years..... Is far and away the worst.....

NOT only are you wrong.... It could be taken as offensive....

You do not have a clue what you are talking about.... You are just running off at the mouth...

IF you had any sense, you would back up on this one.... Because it IS wrong.... 


> Anyone who talks (admiringly) about game bred pit bulls at least supports fighting, that's just sort of The Way Things Are *shrug*. No other way to see it really.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Gameness is an Admirable trait.......
> 
> 
> And this statement....
> ...


I also agree, she has said some outlandish things, but when I read this I was like WTF???

Well, than I guess I support fighting and am a terrible person, because I admire gameness in ALL terriers, not JUST PBs because ALL terriers SHOULD exhibit some form of gameness relaying to their breed. Put Bear (JRT) in the presence of appropriate quarry and he will also exhibit gameness.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I think there are many breeds that have ugly histories. What about bear dogs and wolf dogs and dogs breed to rip apart foxes for sport? I think we all (should) know better now and appreciate breeds for what they are. Their past is important because that's how they came to be. That doesn't mean that I want the bad things to happen again or that I support them in any way. The gameness in dogs now can be used for other sports (Lil's teriers and barn hunts or PBs and hog hunting). Ya know?

I do not support dog fight or the use of dogs to maim game animals. Dogs should kill their game animal quickly or the hunter should put the animal out of it's misery as fast as possible.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I think there are many breeds that have ugly histories. What about bear dogs and wolf dogs and dogs breed to rip apart foxes for sport? I think we all (should) know better now and appreciate breeds for what they are. Their past is important because that's how they came to be. That doesn't mean that I want the bad things to happen again or that I support them in any way. The gameness in dogs now can be used for other sports (Lil's teriers and barn hunts or PBs and hog hunting). Ya know?
> 
> I do not support dog fight or the use of dogs to maim game animals. Dogs should kill their game animal quickly or the hunter should put the animal out of it's misery as fast as possible.


Don't forget Bulldogs, most of the terriers, hounds, oh and don't forget the large mollosars. 

And I admire ALL those breeds INCLUDING their pasts and where they came from, you know what they say "you can't see how far you have come until you look behind you." So without looking back how are we to see how far those breeds have progressed?

But ... I guess in the views of SOME (*coughcough*) that makes me a horrible dog abuser who supports cruelty :/


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

there are some GREAT people, that have done some GREAT things with the breed.... That NEVER honored or admired the fighters.... 

Yet... Willowy... in one post disrespected thousands of great people. Talking sideways on a subject she knows zero about. Never stops her.... 
She talks without knowledge.....


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> there are some GREAT people, that have done some GREAT things with the breed.... That NEVER honored or admired the fighters....
> 
> Yet... Willowy... in one post disrespected thousands of great people. Talking sideways on a subject she knows zero about. Never stops her....
> She talks without knowledge.....


I have noticed a trend with this.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Frankly.... I am all for foxes, raccoons, etc... Living their lives.....

But I feel the same about the farmers..... 

It might be ugly if a game terrier tears up a fox, raccoon, etc...

But I will not take the chicken out of the farmer's family's mouths and put it in the varmint's mouth....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yay, I feel so popular. You know you've hit a nerve when people talk trash about you . 

I don't think any ugly history is worth admiring. We need to know about it to avoid doing it/letting it happen again, but romanticizing history, ugh no. Most of it was terrible.

(there are ways to protect your livestock without killing, oh, every other living thing in the area. Although that tactic is far more popular :/)


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Yay, I feel so popular. You know you've hit a nerve when people talk trash about you .
> 
> I don't think any ugly history is worth admiring. We need to know about it to avoid doing it/letting it happen again, but romanticizing history, ugh no. Most of it was terrible.
> 
> (there are ways to protect your livestock without killing, oh, every other living thing in the area. Although that tactic is far more popular :/)


People are talking trash because you are wrong and won't admit it or see it, that is the nerve you have hit.

I admire the pasts of: bulldogs, PBs, terriers, mollosars etc ... and I am now ashamed to say that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Yay, I feel so popular. You know you've hit a nerve when people talk trash about you .
> 
> I don't think any ugly history is worth admiring. We need to know about it to avoid doing it/letting it happen again, but romanticizing history, ugh no. Most of it was terrible.


You ACTUALLY are happy because you think you have hit a nerve? No you have insulted generations of people without ANY knowledge of what you are talking about....

Trashy, LOW rent and despicable is what it is...... 


IF you are happy..... Your life's goal must be to be an extra on Honey Boo Boo..... 

It is NOT that you have hit a nerve.... I am long since used to stupid crap in your posts.....


It is that you have personally disrespected some great people involved with the breed....

Including my father, grandfather, Uncles, great uncles, etc..... Plus a Lot of other great people.


Your statement is BEYOND disrespectful.... Frankly I am far beyond caring if I get banned from this forum for calling you out on it. 

Any niceties that existed between you and I is GONE.... 

Frankly a forum that condones your **** behavior.... I do not want to be a part of.....


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Frankly.... I am all for foxes, raccoons, etc... Living their lives.....
> 
> But I feel the same about the farmers.....
> 
> ...


I am all for using dogs to hunt or maintain the varment population (where legal). I own a Rattie and I am willing to try him on rats this fall if someone in the area has a rat problem. But only if he kills them. I think it's cruel and unnecessary to have a dog play with prey. Quick kill and move on.

A game terrier should kill quick though, eh? Or if you are hunting bigger game or predators (like coyotes), you shoot it down after the dog catches it to prevent injury to the hunter and dogs, yeah? Or at least, that's how I thought it was meant to go.



Willowy said:


> I don't think any ugly history is worth admiring. We need to know about it to avoid doing it/letting it happen again, but romanticizing history, ugh no. Most of it was terrible


Remember, yes. Admire, no. I agree with you.

ETA: Gameness to hunt and kill prey or varmint animals is admirable to me. I, personally, don't agree with breeding DA dogs as it has no purpose to me and I do not think it's any fun. But that's why I don't own a breed who is prone to it. I find dog fighting to be deplorable, but I acknowledge it created and maintained several breeds for a long time. I do not admire dog fighting in the least, however.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

@willowy Yes for someone who claims to love dogs, you don't talk like you do. You bash breeders and whole breeds and people who admire a trait in a breed, not just this one incident, but you have said that you have no respect for people who admire grit in a working dog. 

Whatever.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RabbleFox said:


> I am all for using dogs to hunt or maintain the varment population (where legal). I own a Rattie and I am willing to try him on rats this fall if someone in the area has a rat problem. But only if he kills them. I think it's cruel and unnecessary to have a dog play with prey. Quick kill and move on.
> 
> A game terrier should kill quick though, eh? Or if you are hunting bigger game or predators (like coyotes), you shoot it down after the dog catches it to prevent injury to the hunter and dogs, yeah? Or at least, that's how I thought it was meant to go.
> 
> ...


there is no black and white... A young dog will be messy... An experienced dog will typically be quick.... But sometimes it turns into a fight and gets drawn out....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> People are talking trash because you are wrong and won't admit it or see it, that is the nerve you have hit.
> 
> I admire the pasts of: bulldogs, PBs, terriers, mollosars etc ... and I am now ashamed to say that.


Only person that is talking trash is Willowy.....


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I am all for using dogs to hunt or maintain the varment population (where legal). I own a Rattie and I am willing to try him on rats this fall if someone in the area has a rat problem. But only if he kills them. I think it's cruel and unnecessary to have a dog play with prey. Quick kill and move on.
> 
> A game terrier should kill quick though, eh? Or if you are hunting bigger game or predators (like coyotes), you shoot it down after the dog catches it to prevent injury to the hunter and dogs, yeah? Or at least, that's how I thought it was meant to go.
> 
> ...


Cats torture their prey all the time and honestly I have no love for rats or mice.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Cats torture their prey all the time and honestly I have no love for rats or mice.


My cats (or rather my mother's cats) are not allowed to purposefully hunt.  They are inside only and we do not have mice anymore.

Just because you do not love a creature doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a quick death.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Meh, I let the predators have their fun. Death that way is still better than poison.

Same goes for feral hogs, those can die a horrible death for all I care too. I have lost goats to those things so nope, don't like them either.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Meh, I let the predators have their fun. Death that way is still better than poison.
> 
> Same goes for feral hogs, those can die a horrible death for all I care too. I have lost goats to those things so nope, don't like them either.


Snap traps are really the way to go. Poison is no way to die.

A younger dog can be messy but they learn quickly. Maybe. I dunno. I get that it's a tough business (vermin control) but I see no reason to let things get drawn out when it's obviously going to be a long while. As fast as possible, a death should be.

Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I'm going to let it suffer. But maybe that's just me???


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RabbleFox said:


> My cats (or rather my mother's cats) are not allowed to purposefully hunt.  They are inside only and we do not have mice anymore.
> 
> Just because you do not love a creature doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a quick death.


the point is... It does not always happen that way.... 

I spend large amounts of money for the finest weapons money can buy..... Best optics.... Spend a small fortune on rounds practicing.... Will not take an iffy shot.... But at times something goes wrong.. Wind picks up at the moment the trigger is pulled, a flinch, a muscle cramp, etc... And a shot is off a half inch..... 

Same thing with dogs..... A dog may be a master at killing... And dogs kill quickly because it benefits them.... But something can go wrong....


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Let's watch the language guys. Swearing is not allowed on the forum.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I watched a 15 month old Patterdale... that weighed all of 15 pounds... Take out a mature adult coyote inside of 30 seconds.... But a couple months later, I saw the same dog take 10 minutes plus to take out a half grown raccoon.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> the point is... It does not always happen that way....
> 
> I spend large amounts of money for the finest weapons money can buy..... Best optics.... Spend a small fortune on rounds practicing.... Will not take an iffy shot.... But at times something goes wrong.. Wind picks up at the moment the trigger is pulled, a flinch, a muscle cramp, etc... And a shot is off a half inch.....
> 
> Same thing with dogs..... A dog may be a master at killing... And dogs kill quickly because it benefits them.... But something can go wrong....


Right. But I assume you amend things by taking the second shot. You don't let the beast wander around, bleeding to death slowly? The dog should go in and attempt to finish his prey or his handler should step in (when he safely can) and end it. Right?

ETA: Raccoons can be nasty buggers! At least coyotes don't have creepy little people hands.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RabbleFox said:


> Right. But I assume you amend things by taking the second shot. You don't let the beast wander around, bleeding to death slowly? The dog should go in and attempt to finish his prey or his handler should step in (when he safely can) and end it. Right?
> 
> ETA: Raccoons can be nasty buggers! At least coyotes don't have creepy little people hands.


You do not always get a second shot... And it is seldom as accurate as the first.... And if you do get a second shot, it might be two hours later...

As for the dogs... I am pretty bold but stepping between a Patterdale and a raccoon is no joke...


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

There's crazy people in every breed, but with Pit Bulls, there seems to be a special kind of crazy, because they are such a controversial breed. Since several others have admitted it themselves, I'm going to go ahead and just say I to find the fighting history behind the Pit Bull very fascinating as well. One thing I don't think a lot of people realize is that dog fighting back in the days of real dogmen was very, very different then how it is now. Dogs weren't fought to the death or even to a point where they were seriously hurt. The fights were broken up before it got to that point. They weren't starved or beaten, or abused to make them "meaner", and they weren't just senselessly slaughtered by their owners for losing a fight. As completely backwards as it sounds, dogmen back in the days actually really cared for and loved their dogs. 

And with all of that being said, I don't find anything about dog fighting THESE days to be acceptable in any sense of the word, and would turn ANYONE in that I suspected were fighting their dogs, period. There are some people on those Pit Bull forums I seriously wonder about and get the creeps from. But respecting the history and supporting dog fighting here and now are two VERY different things.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RCloud said:


> There's crazy people in every breed, but with Pit Bulls, there seems to be a special kind of crazy, because they are such a controversial breed. Since several others have admitted it themselves, I'm going to go ahead and just say I to find the fighting history behind the Pit Bull very fascinating as well. One thing I don't think a lot of people realize is that dog fighting back in the days of real dogmen was very, very different then how it is now. Dogs weren't fought to the death or even to a point where they were seriously hurt. The fights were broken up before it got to that point. They weren't starved or beaten, or abused to make them "meaner", and they weren't just senselessly slaughtered by their owners for losing a fight. As completely backwards as it sounds, dogmen back in the days actually really cared for and loved their dogs.
> 
> And with all of that being said, I don't find anything about dog fighting THESE days to be acceptable in any sense of the word, and would turn ANYONE in that I suspected were fighting their dogs, period. There are some people on those Pit Bull forums I seriously wonder about and get the creeps from. But respecting the history and supporting dog fighting here and now are two VERY different things.


Even being nostalgic about the history of a breed and supporting animal cruelty are two different things as well, what I got from Willowy's that if someone was nostalgic about a breeds past then they supported the cruel aspects of that past ... whatever it may be whether we are referencing the large mollosars pasts in the coliseum and on the battle feilds of Rome, or the PBs past in the pits.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Even being nostalgic about the history of a breed and supporting animal cruelty are two different things as well


And this is what I'm saying. The fact is, if you truly love the way the APBT is today, you have to atleast respect their past, because it's their past that makes them what they are now and gives them the traits they have. And you can do that, and still be fully AGAINST dog fighting and animal cruelty.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RCloud said:


> And this is what I'm saying. The fact is, if you truly love the way the APBT is today, you have to atleast respect their past, because it's their past that makes them what they are now and gives them the traits they have. And you can do that, and still be fully AGAINST dog fighting and animal cruelty.


Yes I was trying to say I agreed with you but wanted to add some points ... sorry for the confusion lol.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I do admire the pit bull breeds and the selection process that made them. That cute, snorty critter that steals your sheets at night wouldn't have existed if the dogmen had not fought its ancestors and selected for a specific set of traits. It makes the pit bull both beautiful and terrifying, cute and predatory all at the same time.

I am toying with ideas about breeding pit bulls in the distant future and it's good to know and appreciate what the past generations envisioned for the breeds and selected for to create the modern iterations of them.

We can all agree the way many pit dog breeders selcted for traits was awful and barbaric, but we should also agree that they helped shape some absolutely wonderful traits in the dogs as a result of the methods.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> We can all agree the way many pit dog breeders selcted for traits was awful and barbaric, but we should also agree that they helped shape some absolutely wonderful traits in the dogs as a result of the methods.


I guess you could also say that certain practices in the past resulted in better humans now. . .but talking about it in any kind of positive context makes me feel pretty skeevy :/.


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

Why is it so bad to support the history of a breed, if you no longer condone what that breed was originally bred for?

I personally see nothing wrong with it, even if the history of that particular breed isn't so nice.If we didn't breed said traits,& actually, you know,condone those behaviors,back in the day,we wouldn't have the APBT, or other breeds.

That doesn't mean I support dogfighting, though. In fact, I'd quickly turn anyone in for the act of dogfighting, no doubt about it.I don't support anyone who fights Pits,& it frankly sickens me.

I have to agree some of the Pit Bull community are nuts, really nuts.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

JazzyTheSiberian said:


> Why is it so bad to support the history of a breed?
> 
> .


Nothing is wrong with it.... Unless you have no clue what you are talking about...Only idiots deny a breeds history....


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Nothing is wrong with it.... Unless you have no clue what you are talking about...Only idiots deny a breeds history....


I definitely don't see anything wrong with supporting any breeds history. It was just stated that some people don't accept it,& I just wondering.Reasons are state below.




> I personally see nothing wrong with it, even if the history of that particular breed isn't so nice.If we didn't breed said traits,& actually, you know,condone those behaviors,back in the day,we wouldn't have the APBT, or other breeds.
> 
> That doesn't mean I support dogfighting, though. In fact, I'd quickly turn anyone in for the act of dogfighting, no doubt about it.I don't support anyone who fights Pits,& it frankly sickens me.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> I guess you could also say that certain practices in the past resulted in better humans now. . .but talking about it in any kind of positive context makes me feel pretty skeevy :/.


So I guess we shouldn't admire and appreciate the complex and rich Slave Culture in the US? The culture that gave birth to music and art virtually unparralelled by anything else in the modern world? We shouldn't appreciate the fact that thousands of Jews fled Germany to the US and gave us life saving technologies today we may not have otherwise? That the US fought a terrible, bloody war of independence with Britain to create one of the best places to live in a good part of history? We can't admire the tireless work of Egyptian slaves which built one of the seven wonders of the world, the Pyramids?

Pretty similar cases by my book...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Denying something happened is silly. Saying that what happened was horrible and, oh, maybe the world would have been a better place if people hadn't behaved that way? Ooh, such a terrible thing to think :/.


"Compassion for animals is intimately associated with goodness of character, and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.
Arthur Schopenhauer, The Basis of Morality


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

BigLittle said:


> So I guess we shouldn't admire and appreciate the complex and rich Slave Culture in the US? The culture that gave birth to music and art virtually unparralelled by anything else in the modern world? We shouldn't appreciate the fact that thousands of Jews fled Germany to the US and gave us life saving technologies today we may not have otherwise? That the US fought a terrible, bloody war of independence with Britain to create one of the best places to live in a good part of history? We can't admire the tireless work of Egyptian slaves which built one of the seven wonders of the world, the Pyramids?
> 
> Pretty similar cases by my book...



Willowy's view of the world is FAR to simplistic to take anything into account over than her personal narrrow minded....er... close minded world .....


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, like it or not, it happened, and because it happened this world has one seriously amazing breed of dog. Acknowledging the Pit Bull terrier is what it is today because of it's past doesn't make you a supporter of dog fighting.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

BigLittle said:


> So I guess we shouldn't admire and appreciate the complex and rich Slave Culture in the US? The culture that gave birth to music and art virtually unparralelled by anything else in the modern world? We shouldn't appreciate the fact that thousands of Jews fled Germany to the US and gave us life saving technologies today we may not have otherwise? That the US fought a terrible, bloody war of independence with Britain to create one of the best places to live in a good part of history? We can't admire the tireless work of Egyptian slaves which built one of the seven wonders of the world, the Pyramids?
> 
> Pretty similar cases by my book...


Those were actually exactly the sorts of things I was thinking about. And, yeah, I think saying "wow, good thing the Holocaust happened so we could have more Jewish doctors in the US!" is going a little far.

Making the best of a bad situation? Yes, it's necessary for human sanity. Saying that it was a good thing that bad thing happened because we got x out of it? No, I'm not willing to say that.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Those were actually exactly the sorts of things I was thinking about. And, yeah, I think saying "wow, good thing the Holocaust happened so we could have more Jewish doctors in the US!" is going a little far.


Appreciate:


> 1 a : to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of


Because clearly I am an anti-semite. Or maybe this was what I meant by "appreciate". Notice I didn't say I "admired " the fact that Jews were fleeing Hitler.


> We shouldn't appreciate the fact that thousands of Jews fled Germany to the US and gave us life saving technologies today we may not have otherwise?


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

You can admit something is bad and still respect it for the good it's created today. It's called facing reality.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

The Slave Culture was a better analogy, anyway. While a horrible thing happened to Africans way back when, the world has a heap of cultural treasure despite that and it wouldn't have happened otherwise. In a similar vein, I admire the culture in its earlier forms. I also admire the brave, loyal dogs produced in the pit that made today's breeds and I APPRECIATE what the dog fighters did, in a sense of respectful understanding and not "Yay, dogfighting!" attitude.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Those were actually exactly the sorts of things I was thinking about. And, yeah, I think saying "wow, good thing the Holocaust happened so we could have more Jewish doctors in the US!" is going a little far.
> 
> Making the best of a bad situation? Yes, it's necessary for human sanity. Saying that it was a good thing that bad thing happened because we got x out of it? No, I'm not willing to say that.




But you confuse gameness and fighting.... They are two different things.... Not that you care or KNOW enough to know there is a difference...


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

All major historical events have repercussions, both good and bad. No one event (or person) is wholly bad and no one event is wholly good. Someone always gets the short end of the stick and ends up poor, broken, and/or dead. I think JB already mentioned that nothing is black and white. There are certainly events which are _mostly_ bad, genocides and war and dead dogs, but these events often spur the rest of humanity into action, to become greater than said event. So even bad events can have good outcomes tied to them.

So, I think we all can agree that dog fighting is bad _buuuut_ a dog breed was forged from that and has since risen above that history considering we now find the practice cruel. Do I want it to happen again? No. We all here would call in a dog fighter should we be presented the evidence.

The fact of the matter is that something _did_ happen, in the past, and we cannot change it. We can only deal with the outcome and enjoy our dogs. Yeah?


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

RCloud said:


> Well, like it or not, it happened, and because it happened this world has one seriously amazing breed of dog. Acknowledging the Pit Bull terrier is what it is today because of it's past doesn't make you a supporter of dog fighting.


This, is basically what I've been trying to say.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

The entire history of dog ownership, not just blood sports, involved centuries of cruelty and inhumane practices.

Yet, Willowy, you own a dog and I'm sure you're grateful for it.

Admiring a game dog is not about admiring blood sport or cruelty. Its about admiring the breed / animal itself and what its over come. When you look at your dog, do you think "I wish you didn't exist, because your creation is the result of centuries of cruelty, captivity and long lasting ignorance of man toward animals?"

Do you look at your hamburger and think "I enjoy a good burger, so I must by default take joy and pleasure in the act of slaughter that produced it."

I look at a game line dog and think "This is a beautiful and amazing animal that survived and developed not just in the face of adversity, but because of it. Possessing so many traits and a character that humans could learn so much from. The proverbial DOG. Tenacious, determined, loving, forgiving, hard working. An honest and sincere character, despite what its breed has been through."

I don't sit there and think "Hey, Dog fighting is awesome. Good thing it happened."

I appreciate it for what it is, I don't appreciate what made it that way. But I do think its important to understand what a breed is, which means acknowledging (not admiring) how it came to be.


And a dog being "Game" does NOT mean it has ever fought. Gameness is a character trait. Nothing more, nothing less. A game dog isn't even necessarily dog aggressive.


----------



## JazzyTheSiberian (Feb 4, 2013)

> So, I think we all can agree that dog fighting is bad buuuut a dog breed was forged from that and has since risen above that history considering we now find the practice cruel. Do I want it to happen again? No. We all here would call in a dog fighter should we be presented the evidence.


Yeah. Dog fighting disgusts me. But, that doesn't mean I won't support the history of the APBT.

I'd call dog fighting in, on a dime. That's how much I would hate to see people do it.


----------



## bowie (Apr 26, 2010)

RabbleFox said:


> There are certainly events which are _mostly_ bad, genocides and war and dead dogs, but these events often spur the rest of humanity into action, to become greater than said event.


I think you need to re-read what you just wrote here. Genocide is "mostly" bad? Equating genocide with dead dogs? Yikes.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

My favorite horse breed, the Percheron, has its roots in warfare. Obviously war itself can be brutal, and leading unknowing and innocent loyal animals to suffer and die for men's conflicts is quite a depressing thing to look back on. But the qualities that made their ancestors great warhorses make them great light draft horses today - willing workers, with more cleverness and boldness than the average horse, sound, strong structure, and vigorous good health even in difficult conditions. Galloping astride one makes it quite easy to imagine how people might have trusted their own lives to and based their military strategy on these animals. I think the best way to honor their unfortunate predecessors is to celebrate the gorgeous animals their sacrifices produced, and to treat them respectfully and humanely.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Those were actually exactly the sorts of things I was thinking about. And, yeah, I think saying "wow, good thing the Holocaust happened so we could have more Jewish doctors in the US!" is going a little far.
> 
> Making the best of a bad situation? Yes, it's necessary for human sanity. Saying that it was a good thing that bad thing happened because we got x out of it? No, I'm not willing to say that.


I think people are saying more along the lines of "Yes, this bad thing happened... but at least something good came out of it." 

People can't undo things that happened long before they were born. But finding some good that came out of those things doesn't mean they're saying "boy it sure was a good thing that terrible thing happened!"


----------



## stafinois (Jun 16, 2010)

Gumiho said:


> And a dog being "Game" does NOT mean it has ever fought. Gameness is a character trait. Nothing more, nothing less. A game dog isn't even necessarily dog aggressive.


There was one dogman (I'm thinking Hemphill or Wilder) who would show up with a bunch of dogs in the back of a station wagon. Loose. Together. He'd pull out each one to do their thing then stick them back in the car with the other dogs. 

I'd have loved to have one of those as a performance dog.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

bowie said:


> I think you need to re-read what you just wrote here. Genocide is "mostly" bad? Equating genocide with dead dogs? Yikes.


I didn't say they were the same? I apologize if it appears that I think they are on the same level. I was attempting to tie my argument back to dog fighting and the topic at hand. 

Someone already mentioned that one of the outcomes of the Holocaust was the banding together of our own country and pulling ourselves out of the Depression. Which is good. Genocide = bad but what happens around it or because of it can be good. New inventions, a stimulated economy, the forging of allies. That's good. Killing people is obviously bad I don't want it to happen again but the reprecussions of WWII and the Holocaust aren't all bad.


----------



## bowie (Apr 26, 2010)

RabbleFox said:


> I didn't say they were the same? I apologize if it appears that I think they are on the same level. I was attempting to tie my argument back to dog fighting and the topic at hand.
> 
> Someone already mentioned that one of the outcomes of the Holocaust was the banding together of our own country and pulling ourselves out of the Depression. Which is good. Genocide = bad but what happens around it or because of it can be good. New inventions, a stimulated economy, the forging of allies. That's good. Killing people is obviously bad I don't want it to happen again but the reprecussions of WWII and the Holocaust aren't all bad.


Ok I get you, the wording was just a little strange to me.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Look ... like it or not, agree with it or not, we need the history of these breeds because they wouldn't be the dogs they are today without it. I don't condone dog fighting but the same traits that make a pit bull game for fighting also make it a great choice for hog hunters. Also breeders are breeding away from DA, whether intentionally or not. Though I would hate to see the gameness make an exit as well.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

stafinois said:


> There was one dogman (I'm thinking Hemphill or Wilder) who would show up with a bunch of dogs in the back of a station wagon. Loose. Together. He'd pull out each one to do their thing then stick them back in the car with the other dogs.
> 
> I'd have loved to have one of those as a performance dog.


Even the Colby family have commented on it a lot. The family has the longest history with the breed, and in the past they did fight. But the last few generations, the late Louis Colby in particular, have been vocal and open about dog fighting NOT being needed to preserve gameness, that the two were not reliant on each other. Louis Colby even made a point to mention a pretty well known Colby dog from earlier generations, one that was noted as being particularly brutal in fights... And showing the dog entertaining a puppy that was pulling on his ear. And if you read a lot of the old materials and memoirs, most of those fighting dogs were house pets and farm dogs that lived peacefully with other animals and small children day in and day out. It was a different era. Some people shed the ignorance with time, others are stuck in it on both sides of the coin.

A quote from his book regarding gameness in the APBT: 


"I understand the concept of gameness, and I, like most people, admire it. But I do not confine my definition of gameness to a dog's ability to beat up another dog; I define it as willingness to complete a task no matter how tired, discouraged or hurt it is. To say that a gamecock or Pit Bull "enjoys" fighting is to blind yourself to the fact that fighting is painful and stressful and not designed to be enjoyed... But mankind admires the fighter (more specifically the winner) and, admittedly, there is not much to admire about a quitter. And that is what draws people to the game animals. Some of the greatest thrills of my life have included watching my little colby bitch out-pull larger Huskies at weight pulls, or Annette Cheeks' outstanding red-nosed bitch being the only dog (let alone a little bitch) to knock down the "bad guy" at the Schutzhund Nationals; something the big male Rottweilers, Malinois and German Shepherds couldn't do. The Pit Bull stands alone as a dog breed - its heart stands out whatever the task it is asked to do. And that is gameness, and that is what makes the breed unique."




(Seriously, the ignorance and confusion about what Gameness and a Game Dog is has led to me keeping this and other quotes saved on my computer for quick reference. :/ )

History is important. Even if its not pretty. It helps prevent repetition. It teaches us not only about the breed, but about ourselves and there is so much we can learn from such an outstanding, loving, forgiving and perservering breed that evolved and from a what was once a socially acceptable cruelty. The unfortunate thing is they evolved faster than we have learned. And the breed should not be cast aside as a denial of humanity's past cruelty. Game breeds still deserve to exist, they aren't responsible for what was done to them in the past. And one doesn't have to condone past acts of cruelty to appreciate those that came from it.


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Are there competitions (non fighting) today for pit bulls that demonstrate their gameness? Can breeding for dog aggression be bred out of them yet still retain gameness? I confess to not being knowledgeable about them.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

spotted nikes said:


> Are there competitions (non fighting) today for pit bulls that demonstrate their gameness? Can breeding for dog aggression be bred out of them yet still retain gameness? I confess to not being knowledgeable about them.



Yes. Tracking, weight pull, hunting, schutzhund, most dog sports, ect.

Gameness isn't about aggression. Its about heart and tenacity, pushing through stressors to get the task done. They can display that in any task give to them.

A game dog is a dog that will push forward and give it their all, even when the odds are stacked against them, when other dogs might give up in frustration or where they can show their merit against competition that should theoretically outshine them. (or, in extreme settings, pushing through despite risk to their own well-being.)

Thats why Colby specifically mentioned two instances in Weight pull and Schutzhund. Such as a small bitch taking down a helper that the other, larger dogs of breeds more common in the sport failed to take down. Or a small bitch out-pulling larger packing / sledding breeds.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Yep, every terrier should exhibit gameness and there are competitions that test this without resorting to violence. There are barn hunts, earth dog trials, weight pulling, tracking etc ...

But saying we should cull gameness from the blood lines? Gameness is to a terrier what grit is to a working dog. It's what essentially makes a terrier ... a terrier.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Yep, every terrier should exhibit gameness and there are competitions that test this without resorting to violence. There are barn hunts, earth dog trials, weight pulling, tracking etc ...
> 
> But saying we should cull gameness from the blood lines? Gameness is to a terrier what grit is to a working dog. It's what essentially makes a terrier ... a terrier.



Yes. Gameness is an intricate and vital part of what makes an APBT an APBT.

Now, some breeders *are* breeding out Dog Aggression. And thats not a loss to the breed. But that can be done without sacrificing drive and gameness.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Gumiho said:


> Yes. Gameness is an intricate and vital part of what makes an APBT an APBT.
> 
> Now, some breeders *are* breeding out Dog Aggression. And thats not a loss to the breed. But that can be done without sacrificing drive and gameness.


Yes I also support doing away with DA provided it doesn't sacrifice other desirable traits.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Things like gameness etc are what make dogs unique. It is a quality that lends itself to being invaluable in many tasks. Even tasks people do not think about. 

Think about this scenario...... A disabled person in a wheel chair has a pit as a service dog. The dog assists in pulling him up ramps inclines etc. An easy enough task for a healthy pit. Really any medium sized dog for that matter. 

But now there is a bad storm. Lighting popping all around, pouring rain. To get to shelter the disabled person has to get up a steep ramp. Too steep, it was built wrong. But no choice. Get up the ramp or stay out in the storm. 
In addition to being to steep, the ramp is now slick from rain. The person in the chair now has extra weight from being soaked in the rain. The lightning is causing static electricity to bounce off the hand rails. 

Now ..... In that scenario do you want a game dog? Or just any dog? Everything in that dog's mind is telling him to cut out and bail. The task is far harder than it has ever been. Far too hard. There is danger. The dog can feel the electricity in the air. There is pain. Trying to dig in and hold traction on the steep slick ramp. Its pads nails joints all feel like they are going to explode.


----------



## BostonBullMama (Apr 20, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Things like gameness etc are what make dogs unique. It is a quality that lends itself to being invaluable in many tasks. Even tasks people do not think about.
> 
> Think about this scenario...... A disabled person in a wheel chair has a pit as a service dog. The dog assists in pulling him up ramps inclines etc. An easy enough task for a healthy pit. Really any medium sized dog for that matter.
> 
> ...


YAAAAAAAY YOU'RE BACK! 


That is all. Continue.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Things like gameness etc are what make dogs unique. It is a quality that lends itself to being invaluable in many tasks. Even tasks people do not think about.
> 
> Think about this scenario...... A disabled person in a wheel chair has a pit as a service dog. The dog assists in pulling him up ramps inclines etc. An easy enough task for a healthy pit. Really any medium sized dog for that matter.
> 
> ...


Welcome back, nice to have someone back who actually knows what they are talking about and others can learn from.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I am going to say this one time. 

I made a comment on Sunday night towards a member of this forum that was insulting. For that I sincerely apologize. I am not naming names specifically .as info not believe there is need. I allowed myself to cross a line that I knew better than to cross. And for that I apologize to the members, moderators and administrators of this forum. 

I make these apologies of free will. I am under no obligation nor agreement to make such statements.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

No worries, when people are passionate about something, things can get heated, we're will only human.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am going to say this one time.
> 
> I made a comment on Sunday night towards a member of this forum that was insulting. For that I sincerely apologize. I am not naming names specifically .as info not believe there is need. I allowed myself to cross a line that I knew better than to cross. And for that I apologize to the members, moderators and administrators of this forum.
> 
> I make these apologies of free will. I am under no obligation nor agreement to make such statements.


It happens to the best of us. Any luck on the breeding? Is Abbey knocked up yet?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I hope so because I can't wait for PUPPY pics!!!


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Things like gameness etc are what make dogs unique. It is a quality that lends itself to being invaluable in many tasks. Even tasks people do not think about.
> 
> Think about this scenario...... A disabled person in a wheel chair has a pit as a service dog. The dog assists in pulling him up ramps inclines etc.  An easy enough task for a healthy pit. Really any medium sized dog for that matter.
> 
> ...


That is an excellent example of gameness.

Another example of a game dog: This pit bull kept her cool and kept at work even with a train heading toward her, and let it hit her in the process of getting the task done. The task? Getting her unconcious owner off the tracks. And then after losing her foot to the train, in severe pain and loosing blood? Kept her cool and guarded her owner until help could arrive. http://lillytheheropitbull.com/

And another: http://www.dogheirs.com/larne/posts/4511-heroic-pit-bull-saves-woman-from-machete-attack
And another: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/pit-bull-hero-blocks-owners-attacker.html
And another:



Now, I am going to revisit the Original Post of this thread. The people that the OP takes issue with are not *entirely* wrong.
Do I think a dog should be punished for biting under those circumstances? No. But in this breed that is (arguably) grounds for culling (spay/neuter and never breeding or collecting prior to doing so). One of the traits that is intrinsic to the breed and IS intended to go hand in hand with gameness, is a very high bite inhibition and to not redirect while under stress, pain or high stimulation (such as while working or... fighting.). This was bred for because dogmen would handle each other's dogs, handle injured dogs and be IN the pit touching the dogs while they were fighting. Same for APBT used as hunting dogs, hunters will handle dogs who were on a catch and sometimes that includes an injured dog. And that is a scenario where its imperitive, for the dog, that the handler be able to safely handle the injured animal and quickly seek care for it.

Its a double edged sword in the breed, but a well bred pitbull is much less likely to bite a human in its own defense, only in its defense of others. As such, while I wouldn't think much of a shepherd or retriever biting under those circumstances... It is going to catch my attention in *this* breed. Doesn't mean its a bad dog, just not a great breeding specimen. And I do agree that those types of individuals ruffle my feathers, so to speak. We get all types in the breed, unfortunately. In the past I even had a rather heated argument with a pit bull rescuer who insisted that if an APBT even showed resource guarding, it should be put down. And we were talking rescue dogs that would never even be bred.

Now, as is obvious, APBT are not the only breed that is "game" and any dog of any breed can prove itself game, but in many breeds that specimen will be the exception rather than the rule. In the APBT, it is supposed to be the rule, not the exception. There are other breeds where it is expected to be the rule, rather than the exception. But one thing that is fairly unique to the APBT is that its also intended to be the rule that the APBT is not a "man biter" unless in defense of another (such as its family). No matter the risk to its own life. To the point they should be the absolute worst guard dog in existence if the family isn't home. 

Now, I do think any HA pit should be put down. I don't think a dog that bites out of fear or pain should be put down, but they are NOT suitable for breeding, imo. Lowering the nerve and bite threshold of this breed is something that is absolutely NOT needed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Is that really a desirable thing to do to an animal? It seems to me it just makes the animal more likely to be abused. I'm not sure it's fair to breed that kind of non-self-preservation into any animal (to be fair, I'm also against breeding Ragdoll cats, whose breed trait is supposed to be a complete lack of self-defense). I think people need at least some degree of natural consequences (pull the cat's tail, get scratched/bitten, etc.) to mistreating animals. Or. . .they will.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Is that really a desirable thing to do to an animal? It seems to me it just makes the animal more likely to be abused. I'm not sure it's fair to breed that kind of non-self-preservation into any animal (to be fair, I'm also against breeding Ragdoll cats, whose breed trait is supposed to be a complete lack of self-defense). I think people need at least some degree of natural consequences (pull the cat's tail, get scratched/bitten, etc.) to mistreating animals. Or. . .they will.


Would your rather see a dog cut bait, tuck tail and run? Or do what it needs to do to help its owner? 

Gameness.... Is a SELF preserving trait....... 

And a game dog is not likely to allow himself to be abused..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RCloud said:


> It happens to the best of us. Any luck on the breeding? Is Abbey knocked up yet?


We AI'd her tonight...
Going to AI her again tomorrow night...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> We AI'd her tonight...
> Going to AI her again tomorrow night...


Vibes she turns up preggers!!!


----------



## BostonBullMama (Apr 20, 2013)

I'm weirdly fertile - so I'll send all my fertility vibes to her!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

BostonBullMama said:


> I'm weirdly fertile - so I'll send all my fertility vibes to her!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


I know this has nothing to do with anything, but I love your siggy ... your dog is so cute!


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

BostonBullMama said:


> I'm weirdly fertile - so I'll send all my fertility vibes to her!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Send some my way while you're at it!


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

> So I guess we shouldn't admire and appreciate the complex and rich Slave Culture in the US? The culture that gave birth to music and art virtually unparralelled by anything else in the modern world? We shouldn't appreciate the fact that thousands of Jews fled Germany to the US and gave us life saving technologies today we may not have otherwise?


I dare you to make that comment to the next 10 African Americans and Jewish Americans you meet. You must be white. There was nothing to admire about enslaving other human beings. As a non white, I am appalled at some of the comments being made here. Yeah, some of you folks just don't get it. It wasn't your families that were gassed for just being who they were. Maybe that one scientist who could have found a cure for cancer ended up in the bottom of a mass grave. Crazy..... There is one thing to know history and learn from it....quite another to "admire and appreciate" God-awful things human beings in power do to other people (and dogs).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Would your rather see a dog cut bait, tuck tail and run? Or do what it needs to do to help its owner?
> 
> Gameness.... Is a SELF preserving trait.......
> 
> And a game dog is not likely to allow himself to be abused..


 If the dog helps his owner due to a strong bond between them, that's great. if the dog is acting purely on instinct it's. . .well, I guess the person still got helped. But it would be like being helped by a programmed robot---not meaningful at all. 

But mostly I was commenting on what Gumiho said: "But one thing that is fairly unique to the APBT is that its also intended to be the rule that the APBT is not a "man biter" unless in defense of another (such as its family). No matter the risk to its own life." which certainly sounds like the dog would not defend himself, and it does seem like it's pretty easy for a thuggish owner to get away with abusing a pit bull, as opposed to, say, a Rott or GSD who would take his arm off.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Willowy said:


> If the dog helps his owner due to a strong bond between them, that's great. if the dog is acting purely on instinct it's. . .well, I guess the person still got helped. But it would be like being helped by a programmed robot---not meaningful at all.
> 
> But mostly I was commenting on what Gumiho said: "But one thing that is fairly unique to the APBT is that its also intended to be the rule that the APBT is not a "man biter" unless in defense of another (such as its family). No matter the risk to its own life." which certainly sounds like the dog would not defend himself, and it does seem like it's pretty easy for a thuggish owner to get away with abusing a pit bull, as opposed to, say, a Rott or GSD who would take his arm off.


I think what Gumiho is saying relates more to sharpness? Like, a German Shepherd (being a herding breed, they tend to be sharp) is sharper than a APBT. I don't know about a Rotts sharpness much, but I do know that Shepherds, Collies, Cattle Dogs tend to be quite sharp and nontolerant whilst Retrievers, Spaniels, and pibbies seem to be much less sharp.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Is that really a desirable thing to do to an animal? It seems to me it just makes the animal more likely to be abused. I'm not sure it's fair to breed that kind of non-self-preservation into any animal (to be fair, I'm also against breeding Ragdoll cats, whose breed trait is supposed to be a complete lack of self-defense). I think people need at least some degree of natural consequences (pull the cat's tail, get scratched/bitten, etc.) to mistreating animals. Or. . .they will.


In a breed judged so harshly when it bites and whose circumstances are rarely considered unless its defending someone else? No. I don't think its unfair, I think that preserving that trait is key to preserving the breed.

Not preserving that trait, contributes to the incidence of bites, and the poor reputation of the breed.

It doesn't mean the dog is a robot, it doesn't mean it is not acting on a bond with an owner, no more than it means a dog who doesn't act lacks a bond with its owner. It means the dog is instinctively more likely to act on that bond, because its nature isn't telling it to flee for self preservation when defending or working and its nature tells it that in its own defense: NOT biting is a form of self-preservation.

The APBT should be a very tolerant dog with a high pain, stress and bite threshold. And it is imperative to the preservation of the breed that those traits be preserved.


Breeding for nervy fear biters (dogs most likely to bite for self-preservation) is a good way to destroy the temperament of a breed. Breeding for very sharp dogs (not nervy, but very low bite threshold or tolerance) is the complete opposite of the breed and would be a dangerous temperament for this breed.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

So Cavalier said:


> I dare you to make that comment to the next 10 African Americans and Jewish Americans you meet. You must be white. There was nothing to admire about enslaving other human beings. As a non white, I am appalled at some of the comments being made here. Yeah, some of you folks just don't get it. It wasn't your families that were gassed for just being who they were. Maybe that one scientist who could have found a cure for cancer ended up in the bottom of a mass grave. Crazy..... There is one thing to know history and learn from it....quite another to "admire and appreciate" God-awful things human beings in power do to other people (and dogs).


I didn't really like that comment much either, but i just ignore stuff like that these days


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> If the dog helps his owner due to a strong bond between them, that's great. if the dog is acting purely on instinct it's. . .well, I guess the person still got helped. But it would be like being helped by a programmed robot---not meaningful at all.
> 
> But mostly I was commenting on what Gumiho said: "But one thing that is fairly unique to the APBT is that its also intended to be the rule that the APBT is not a "man biter" unless in defense of another (such as its family). No matter the risk to its own life." which certainly sounds like the dog would not defend himself, and it does seem like it's pretty easy for a thuggish owner to get away with abusing a pit bull, as opposed to, say, a Rott or GSD who would take his arm off.


I... I... I.... am not sure how to respond to this.... Frankly there is not a response.... 


You have no time around game dogs...... No experiences with them...

A game dog is not likely to stand for abuse... Frankly if they did... They are NOT game.... 

A game dog is not and cannot be a robot... Your attempt at comparison is without merit.... 

What you do not get... You cannot force a game dog.... To exhibit gameness.... It is not something you program or command.... 

It is either there..... Or it is not....And it comes out when the dog draws it out... A person cannot draw it out.....


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering. If a trait has been strongly selected for, it's not a choice, almost like a programmed robot. A dog who is born with that trait manifesting strongly does not get to choose whether he/she will exhibit that trait. It's programmed into their DNA. It can't be forced---it's either there ir it's not---but it's not because the dog chooses to be that way.

You don't think pit bulls are more tolerant of rough handling/abuse than some breeds?


----------



## So Cavalier (Jul 23, 2010)

Adjecyca1 said:


> I didn't really like that comment much either, but i just ignore stuff like that these days


I tried...believe me I tried.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering. If a trait has been strongly selected for, it's not a choice, almost like a programmed robot. A dog who is born with that trait manifesting strongly does not get to choose whether he/she will exhibit that trait. It's programmed into their DNA. It can't be forced---it's either there ir it's not---but it's not because the dog chooses to be that way.
> 
> You don't think pit bulls are more tolerant of rough handling/abuse than some breeds?


You are speaking about a trait you have no experience with.... And thus.... It is NOT something that you or anyone else can grasp without experiencing first hand....


You are expressing opinions on concepts, that though you think you can, you cannot grasp, without hands on experience....

And breeding for traits is not genetic engineering.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> You don't think pit bulls are more tolerant of rough handling/abuse than some breeds?


I'm going to ignore the silliness about choice and selective breeding. 

Yes, Pits are more tolerant of mishandling and abuse.

But breeding for nervy or sharp dogs will NOT REDUCE THE OCCURRENCE OF ABUSE!

You mentioned Rots and GSD earlier. Those are sharper breeds with lower bite thresholds. Does their willingness to bite protect them from abuse? No. Not even remotely. In fact, their willingness to fight it can actually escalate the abuse or... Get them put down for being "aggressive".

And what will happen to the APBT that bites their abusive owner? Will the owner be charged and the dog spirited off to a better home?

No.

They'll be chalked up as proof of how dangerous and unstable "ebil" pit bulls are and how it "just turned on its owner one day, without warning", the abuse will likely be ignored and not factored in as a cause. The owner will put it down and move on to abusing another dog. And even if a rescue or Authorities got involved and they give up the dog. What does a dog with a bite history have in store for its future? In most cases: A needle or spending the rest of its life in a no kill kennel. Because adopting out a dog with a bite history carries too much liability.


This has got to be the one and only time I've ever had someone damning the *unwillingness* to bite in this breed and trying to make an argument for breeding dogs who are more likely to bite.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> You don't think pit bulls are more tolerant of rough handling/abuse than some breeds?


You are confusing things....

Pit bulls are Stoic... That does NOT mean one will allow you to beat it down....


Nothing about gameness suggests a dog will be submissive, retiring or avoid confrontation or slink away with rough handling....


I have been around game dogs my entire life... My childhood was spent in the company of Wallace and some Colby line dogs... I have owned dogs that go back to both lines... NOTHING about them remotely suggests.....that they would tolerate abusive handling..... 

Stoic yes... I have seen some banged up game dogs that allow first aid without the slightest protest... But that does not mean the same dog would allow itself to be beat down..... 

I will say.... I have seen some shelter pit bulls that have endured huge amounts of abuse without retaliation.... But those are not game dogs and not game bred......

Stoic in the face of pain is not the same as being abused.... Dogs know it... Many people do as well....

You are confusing the two...


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

It would with strangers. Sense many Rotts have been bred now with little to known sharpness there was a story of a man coming into the owners yard and strangling their Rott,A sharper dog would not put up with that so much.

Also when it comes to proof good breeding still plays a role,their are plenty of backyard bred sharp or nervy pits out there which makes it hard for me to even believe a poorly bred Pit would be less sharp than a show bred GSD or Rott.
Plus even with sharp dogs they tolerate way more from their owners and can still have good bite control,I should know. They may just bluff more which could be handled pretty easily. So in the right home they shouldn't just turn on someone. Funny enough my Rott will take less bull from people than my Newfie but if actually injured he will act more stoic and push through it more than the Newfie ever did.

Bite wise despite thought of as less sharp breeds for many areas Pit bulls and Retrievers have topped lists,likely because both have had a lot of poor breeding and high popularity. Plus the stories of game dogs biting people. I think its all about the fantasy of having the ultimate tough and heroic dog that will put up with anything the owner out of the goodness of its heart yet will also fight to the death if needed. These people are not real dog lovers the dogs pretty much are just another form of a status dog,something to hold all your ego in. Reminds me of some old but likely false story of a bulldog bitch that held on to a bull while the owner cut off each of her legs and head yet the dog still held on some how. With the audience amazed and puppies sold.

The history of Pits is mainly interesting to many into the breed because it shows their courage or toughness so their is some romanticism of it,which I've been guilty of some. Although not all dog fighters may have abused dogs like Micheal Vick it was never that great for the dogs. I forgot the book at another house but their was a long pit fight with old colby dogs that ended with both dead,many famous champion dogs where sold once their fighting days where numbered,and dog that quit was still culled. It's hard to say if the dogs ever had meaning to them besides making money,fame,ego and entertainment. Kind of why I stopped obsessing over game dogs so much.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

I'm so not going to get into this cluster of a discussion of gameness and pits...but since rottweilers were brought up, I'll add briefly add something. 

When I hear "sharp" with Rottweiler, I think of the hard, highly suspicious dogs of old Europe. Ocean is a sharp dog and he does have a lot of more serious European dogs behind him on both sides of his father. Everything is possibly a threat to him. There's a considerable amount of management that goes with owning a dog like Ocean. I have to manage how the world interacts with him so he doesn't ever feel like he must take matters into his own hands. Ocean will never be able to do boarding at a kennel while we go on vacation. I probably couldn't leave him at the vet's alone or a groomer's alone. I couldn't leave him with friends if we left for a vacation. There are only 2 people outside of me and MrBoats I can think of who could come into our house unaccompanied by us with Ocean home alone. At 2.5 years old, he's just now beginning to trust that I can keep us both safe in various environments. While I love me some high drive dogs with great work ethic...I would probably pass on owning another "sharp" rottweiler in the future because of all of the management. 

The reason why most people are not producing sharp rottweilers is because the breeders have to place these dogs in specific homes. Those specific homes are in short supply. These dogs do not belong with a novice dog owner. It is ok to breed for a hard dog, high drive dog, a smart dog, an agile and athletic dog; it is not so ok to breed for sharp temperament. The general population has far less tolerance for the Rottweilers' temperament of old times. Unless the breeder breeding for the old time correct Rottweilers plans to keep all the pups they produce that are not placed in very experienced working homes or they put down those extra pups, the legal liabilities could be enormous if one of those pups falls into the wrong owner's hands. A bitten person can in fact also sue the breeder or seller. 

Lars is not a sharp dog...but he is a confident and stable temperamented rottweiler. Despite being sharp...Ocean isn't as confident as Lars. I actually think that adds to his sharpness. If someone tried to beat down Ocean....he would fight back and fight back hard with some of it fueled by fear. If someone tried to beat down Lars...the stable confident dog, he would fight back with the full intention of effing someone up and not backing down. His fighting back and not stopping is due to his confidence and very strong nerve. Nothing in this world is a threat to Lars in his eyes. We've always thought he would have made an incredible police dog. He would probably fight someone until one of them was dead because in his mind, there's no way he can lose...so I guess he would be the more "game" out of my two dogs.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

MrsBoats said:


> I'm so not going to get into this cluster of a discussion of gameness and pits...but since rottweilers were brought up, I'll add briefly add something.
> 
> When I hear "sharp" with Rottweiler, I think of the hard, highly suspicious dogs of old Europe. Ocean is a sharp dog because he does have a lot of more serious European dogs behind him on both sides of his father. Everything is possibly a threat to him. There's a considerable amount of management that goes with owning a dog like Ocean. I have to manage how the world interacts with him so he doesn't ever feel like he must take matters into his own hands. At 2.5 years old, he's just now beginning to trust that I can keep us both safe in various environments.
> 
> ...


I would say with my Rott his sharpness was increased by poor treatment and improved over time. He is usually confident and trusting but he has certain limits and a certain sharpness to him. He can show a grittiness if pushed though,going through a nasty fight with a pit without giving up or letting go and wouldn't let go of a tug even when I accidentally injured his foot,pressed hard enough into me he would choked himself pretty badly or if I bang some loud metal near his head. If in the mood he will push through a lot of abuse yet gets grouchy and a little sensitive over things like nail trimmings and hates vets and doesn't do well at festivals for too long. While the Newfie I had despite being more tolerant of being grabbed and pulled at and wouldn't budge if a building fell on him would be more likely to flinch or shut down as well.
But a dog like the Newfie would be a better pet for most people,and although I love my Rott I feel he would be a bigger risk in the wrong hands. A dog that is willing to go through in a attack yet not 100% stable or tolerant is more dangerous and I think is why that trait was not desired in dogs like APBT or protection dogs. It may effect gameness some but maybe not all the time,there are some stories of famous APBT showing sharpness towards people or issues like misplaced aggression but sense it was not a desirable trait it was never talked about very much when the dog was still alive or even after.
Even some Police or Military dogs have been a bit over the top on sharpness but it can make them harder to handle and even more likely to attack any pedestrian if they seem even slightly threatening or inspiring of prey drive,you need a dog with more of a off button than that.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> It would with strangers. Sense many Rotts have been bred now with little to known sharpness there was a story of a man coming into the owners yard and strangling their Rott,A sharper dog would not put up with that so much.
> 
> Also when it comes to proof good breeding still plays a role,their are plenty of backyard bred sharp or nervy pits out there which makes it hard for me to even believe a poorly bred Pit would be less sharp than a show bred GSD or Rott.
> Plus even with sharp dogs they tolerate way more from their owners and can still have good bite control,I should know. They may just bluff more which could be handled pretty easily. So in the right home they shouldn't just turn on someone. Funny enough my Rott will take less bull from people than my Newfie but if actually injured he will act more stoic and push through it more than the Newfie ever did.


No one is saying a poorly bred pit wouldn't be willing to bite. Nor is anyone saying a sharp dog can't develop good bite control. But an untrained sharp dog is likely to have less bite inhibition and a lower threshold. A (well-bred) sharp APBT should still have a high threshold and much more inhibition. Bluff, tackle, retreat... But not bite. Sure, there will be exceptions and circumstances will come into play... But the breed ideal is a very stoic, highly tolerant response. This is a unique trait to APBT and not really expected of other game breeds. What is reasonable to expect from a well bred, game, sharp rot, is not what is reasonable to expect from a well bred, game, sharp APBT.



> Bite wise despite thought of as less sharp breeds for many areas Pit bulls and Retrievers have topped lists,likely because both have had a lot of poor breeding and high popularity. Plus the stories of game dogs biting people. I think its all about the fantasy of having the ultimate tough and heroic dog that will put up with anything the owner out of the goodness of its heart yet will also fight to the death if needed. These people are not real dog lovers the dogs pretty much are just another form of a status dog,something to hold all your ego in. Reminds me of some old but likely false story of a bulldog bitch that held on to a bull while the owner cut off each of her legs and head yet the dog still held on some how. With the audience amazed and puppies sold.


There is no data that actually supports that APBT are at the top of any list for bites. The CDC only collected data on "Pit types" including suspected mixes and given over 30 breeds display "Pit type" and are often identified as such, that doesn't have any value as data and the CDC admitted as much. 

Yes, there is an abundance of poorly bred dogs. And you can't really expect a poorly bred dog to be a good example of standard. The same is true of labs.

As for the urban legend. Obviously BS. 

Again, gameness does not have to do with aggression, so a dog being game does not by default mean it won't bite someone. Even a Game APBT. Aggression is a different trait entirely. Even a dog's willingness to fight or being dog aggressive, does not mean its game. Its not about having the ultimate tough, heroic dog. Its about having a good, stable all-purpose dog that fits the breed standard. And human aggression, fear biting, suspicious nature, overly sharp, low bite inhibition and low stress thresholds are *not* what is looked for in the breed.



> The history of Pits is mainly interesting to many into the breed because it shows their courage or toughness so their is some romanticism of it,which I've been guilty of some. Although not all dog fighters may have abused dogs like Micheal Vick it was never that great for the dogs. I forgot the book at another house but their was a long pit fight with old colby dogs that ended with both dead,many famous champion dogs where sold once their fighting days where numbered,and dog that quit was still culled. It's hard to say if the dogs ever had meaning to them besides making money,fame,ego and entertainment. Kind of why I stopped obsessing over game dogs so much.


But there is nothing romantic about dog fighting. At all. And again Dog fighting and dog aggression =/= gameness. So I'm not sure why a distaste for bloodsport would affect one's appreciation for gameness, which your rots likely possess to some degree (hopefully...)

And the history isn't important because it shows heart and courage. Its important because it played a massive role in developing the breed, understanding the breed and how to better and more humanely preserve the breed. I do believe some of the old dogmen likely genuinely loved their dogs. The expectations of what was humane and acceptable in those days was very different, even in how women and children were treated. But that doesn't make it right.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

So Cavalier said:


> I dare you to make that comment to the next 10 African Americans and Jewish Americans you meet. You must be white. There was nothing to admire about enslaving other human beings. As a non white, I am appalled at some of the comments being made here. Yeah, some of you folks just don't get it. It wasn't your families that were gassed for just being who they were. Maybe that one scientist who could have found a cure for cancer ended up in the bottom of a mass grave. Crazy..... There is one thing to know history and learn from it....quite another to "admire and appreciate" God-awful things human beings in power do to other people (and dogs).


I think this poster's comment was quite awkwardly expressed but I didn't take it this way. I took the meaning to be that it is admirable that even in the horrors of the slave trade and the holocaust, Jewish and African-American people held on to vibrant culture, and showed incredible resilience afterward. I am proud of my ancestors who coped with extreme hardship with dignity and retained their sense of identity. I am of course not proud that they suffered, but proud of how they responded to this suffering.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Gumiho said:


> No one is saying a poorly bred pit wouldn't be willing to bite. Nor is anyone saying a sharp dog can't develop good bite control. But an untrained sharp dog is likely to have less bite inhibition and a lower threshold. A (well-bred) sharp APBT should still have a high threshold and much more inhibition. Bluff, tackle, retreat... But not bite. Sure, there will be exceptions and circumstances will come into play... But the breed ideal is a very stoic, highly tolerant response. This is a unique trait to APBT and not really expected of other game breeds. What is reasonable to expect from a well bred, game, sharp rot, is not what is reasonable to expect from a well bred, game, sharp APBT.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't trying to say that gameness meant the dog was overly aggressive,just saying that both traits can sometimes intertwine. I was arguing against the belief that a gamebred dog would never bite a person.
Rottweilers are not a game breed,but they can be a more gritty or hard one depending on the breeding.

It is challenging to find true bite statistics,and the bites could of been for multiple reasons which can make it hard to judge. Sense people where talking not just about APBT but shelter Pit/Staffy mixes I thought some of the same stuff still applies. 

I know the urban legend is BS just sort of a funny one sometimes passed as truth. The dog fighting itself isn't romantic it's more the aspects,specific dogs and certain dogmen that get romanticized. Like videos like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdi80ygsq8U
The history of it is most important,and people into or plan on owning the breed should read up some on it. Otherwise you get people thinking a game dog has to be trained or forced to fight and end up way over their head. Its the other stuff why people cling onto it so dearly though and many Pit bull owners have trouble detaching their dog from the dogs of the past.

Some might of loved a couple of their proven dogs,I've heard of the once in awhile Champion dog being spoiled after their fighting career but for most part even in the past it feels like those dogs where sold or culled pretty easily. I would think the best dog you owned and bred wouldn't be sold so easily,but when I used to look at a lot of game dog profiles it seems to happen incredibly often. Even by past standards it's kind of questionable to push a dog to almost death in a match,thus why it was still a controversial and partly illegal sport even a hundred years ago. Although it is true stuff like culling was way more common place then. I feel if dog fighters do love some of their dogs they have a tougher time doing such than a regular dog owner,the dog has to be proven enough and some still never grow a real attachment to their dogs.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

parus said:


> I think this poster's comment was quite awkwardly expressed but I didn't take it this way. I took the meaning to be that it is admirable that even in the horrors of the slave trade and the holocaust, Jewish and African-American people held on to vibrant culture, and showed incredible resilience afterward. I am proud of my ancestors who coped with extreme hardship with dignity and retained their sense of identity. I am of course not proud that they suffered, but proud of how they responded to this suffering.


That is how I interpreted it as well. Not that they suffered was good or beautiful, but that what they created was. They created, out of an ugly and horrid experience, something beautiful. And that they aren't defined by what was done to them, but by what they created or have done themselves. 

I find instead, that its disgusting that some people feel that what they created is ugly or should not be appreciated or admired simply because what ultimately led to its creation was wrong.

Bloodsport being cruel and wrong, does not mean game breeds should be cast away or unappreciated.
Slavery being wrong, does not mean the resulting culture, art and those who overcame the adversity and their contributions should be shunned, devalued or cast away because of the events that came prior. 

I'd also like to point out, regarding So Caveliers comment, that the "You must be White" is also a BS and racist comment to throw out there. Might I remind you many Jews are "white", Irish immigrants were "white". And it wasn't only "whites" that are responsible for past (or present) atrocities and cruelties committed against other human beings. Being "White" also does not mean a person's ancestors did not experience the cruelties of inhumanity. Nor does one's skin color automatically determine their ancestry or what their ancestors may or may not have experienced, or their capability of understanding history or feeling the effects of it.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I apologize if my early comments offended people. That was not their original intention in the least.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Willowy said:


> If the dog helps his owner due to a strong bond between them, that's great. if the dog is acting purely on instinct it's. . .well, I guess the person still got helped. But it would be like being helped by a programmed robot---not meaningful at all.


So... If we get a service dog GSD to retrieve stuff in bad winter weather when there are lightning bolts, thats okay. But if its a lab that does it, that has been bred to retrieve even when its cold and wet, thats.... somehow a *worse* thing than the GSD doing it?

I'm pretty confused. Nug loves to fetch. He loves to fetch in the rain. He loves to swim and fetch, and quite honestly last winter I took him out to do water retrieves in a HAILSTORM.

only food rewards. I guarantee you I wasn't beating him to get him to do it. I actually had to physically TAKE THE BALL and MAKE him get in the car because he was shivering but still would not stop getting in the water.

So... using a dog for instinct that they're bred for, expressed in whatever [legal] form you want to... is a negative thing???


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> If the dog helps his owner due to a strong bond between them, that's great. if the dog is acting purely on instinct it's. . .well, I guess the person still got helped. But it would be like being helped by a programmed robot---not meaningful at all.
> 
> But mostly I was commenting on what Gumiho said: "But one thing that is fairly unique to the APBT is that its also intended to be the rule that the APBT is not a "man biter" unless in defense of another (such as its family). No matter the risk to its own life." which certainly sounds like the dog would not defend himself, and it does seem like it's pretty easy for a thuggish owner to get away with abusing a pit bull, as opposed to, say, a Rott or GSD who would take his arm off.


They aren't supposed to be HA, in fact and someone please please correct me if I am wrong, but in the standard it actually says that a dog must be able to be handled in the pits in the middle of a fight. In fact "back in the day" an HA dog would have been culled.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

So Cavalier said:


> I dare you to make that comment to the next 10 African Americans and Jewish Americans you meet. You must be white. There was nothing to admire about enslaving other human beings. As a non white, I am appalled at some of the comments being made here. Yeah, some of you folks just don't get it. It wasn't your families that were gassed for just being who they were. Maybe that one scientist who could have found a cure for cancer ended up in the bottom of a mass grave. Crazy..... There is one thing to know history and learn from it....quite another to "admire and appreciate" God-awful things human beings in power do to other people (and dogs).


Hey my grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee native American ... the original victims of racism and misunderstanding. But I think that people are drawing a parallel BTW "admire" and "appreciate". For example, I APPRECIATE the bravery and the determination of those brave people, it took courage to LIVE though that, as it did for the dog's as well.

does that make sense???? Lol I hope it did.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Rescued said:


> So... If we get a service dog GSD to retrieve stuff in bad winter weather when there are lightning bolts, thats okay. But if its a lab that does it, that has been bred to retrieve even when its cold and wet, thats.... somehow a *worse* thing than the GSD doing it?
> 
> I'm pretty confused. Nug loves to fetch. He loves to fetch in the rain. He loves to swim and fetch, and quite honestly last winter I took him out to do water retrieves in a HAILSTORM.
> 
> ...


 Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Just had to get that part out of the way .

But anyway. . .no, I don't think I'm explaining my feelings on the subject too well. All I can say is, when my Lab could not be prevented from retrieving, she HAD TO do it like some kind of OCD, she nearly got herself killed doing it several times, and it wasn't even _important_. . .I was actually kind of horrified, all I could think is "what have we humans done? We have completely ruined nature".


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Just had to get that part out of the way .
> 
> But anyway. . .no, I don't think I'm explaining my feelings on the subject too well. All I can say is, when my Lab could not be prevented from retrieving, she HAD TO do it like some kind of OCD, she nearly got herself killed doing it several times, and it wasn't even _important_. . .I was actually kind of horrified, all I could think is "what have we humans done? We have completely ruined nature".


Instead of going "OMG THIS DOG CAN'T COPE!" Why not look for a way to USE that OCD drive to make it work for you? Because that is what the majority of people who have dogs like that do 

It's better then actively breeding out drive, IMO


----------



## BostonBullMama (Apr 20, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Instead of going "OMG THIS DOG CAN'T COPE!" Why not look for a way to USE that OCD drive to make it work for you? Because that is what the majority of people who have dogs like that do
> 
> It's better then actively breeding out drive, IMO


I agree - I'd rather have a dog with the drive to do something, than a dog who merely exists.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Yeah nothing worse than a dog who is just a "pillow" (her word gets not mine).

Isn't that what she chastised cat owners who declaw their cats about? For "wanting a pillow" as opposed to a living, breathing animal.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

OCD and drive are completely, completely different things. Most dogs with drive, like even the level that rescued is talking about, do not have OCD. 

Just tossing that little tidbit out there.

(And a dog with the desire to work being a 'robot'? Come on. Seriously? No.)


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Just had to get that part out of the way .
> 
> But anyway. . .no, I don't think I'm explaining my feelings on the subject too well. All I can say is, when my Lab could not be prevented from retrieving, she HAD TO do it like some kind of OCD, she nearly got herself killed doing it several times, and it wasn't even _important_. . .I was actually kind of horrified, all I could think is "what have we humans done? We have completely ruined nature".


Well I mean honestly that sounds like a training issue. You are allowing the dog to exhibit an undesired AND dangerous behavior.

We are working on proofing the retrieve for situations exactly like that. Guide dogs do it all the time. It's called intelligent disobedience and is a really common upper level training thing.

And no, you cannot then equate that with dogfighting, because when it happened, it was a DESIRED behavior. When its not desired, the dog can be trained to ignore the stimulus.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Rescued said:


> Well I mean honestly that sounds like a training issue. You are allowing the dog to exhibit an undesired AND dangerous behavior.


Honestly, I can't even tell what level Willowy's talking about, but it doesn't sound much like actual canine OCD, to me. Actual OCD is as much a mental illness in a dog as a person, and it's not always training related - but it sure as heck is an issue that can be allowed to get worse and not properly managed. REALLY REALLY wanting to retrieve a ball doesn't mean obsessing about the ball whether it's there or not, and being unable to function or focus because they're occupied and preoccupied with the thought of the ball. 

And none of that's got a thing to do with gameness or drive. They *aren't the same thing*.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Meh, I didn't say it had to bother anyone else. I was just uncomfortable by the whole "deeply bred in trait" thing, particularly when it became harmful. I've never met a dog who "just existed" unless it was beaten down (physically or psychologically) to the point of being too scared to do anything, so I don't know why anyone would think I want a pet pillow. I like dogs to be dogs and I don't find it admirable when they're bred to disregard self-preservation for the sake of human games, or even, to some extent, human welfare (why should they be expected to be less selfish than humans?). That's all. 

And, last I'll say about "gameness": that's absolutely not how the majority of "pit bull people" on forums or blogs or in real life describe "gameness". Too bad there can't be a consensus on that one.

What is it called when a dog wants to jump off a cliff to get her toy (bounced wrong, bad throw, whatever) and has to be dragged back to the car because she WILL go back and jump off that cliff to get that toy if allowed to? I always thought that was drive but I'm not really sure. Most Labs I know/have known are like that.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Honestly, I can't even tell what level Willowy's talking about, but it doesn't sound much like actual canine OCD, to me. Actual OCD is as much a mental illness in a dog as a person, and it's not always training related - but it sure as heck is an issue that can be allowed to get worse and not properly managed. REALLY REALLY wanting to retrieve a ball doesn't mean obsessing about the ball whether it's there or not, and being unable to function or focus because they're occupied and preoccupied with the thought of the ball.
> 
> And none of that's got a thing to do with gameness or drive. They *aren't the same thing*.


I dont even know about the rest of this argument haha. What I am debating is that somehow using a dog with a will do do what its been bred for (drive) and using that will in situations we might find aversive and difficult as people (game) is not a cruel thing, and does not make the dog a robot. 

Particularly when insinuating that service dogs with drive or "game" (JB's example) is somehow a negative thing. I hate nothing more then when people insinuate that service dogs dont love their jobs. Guess what happens if they don't? They go home to the puppy raiser and become a pet.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Meh, I didn't say it had to bother anyone else. I was just uncomfortable by the whole "deeply bred in trait" thing, particularly when it became harmful. I've never met a dog who "just existed" unless it was beaten down (physically or psychologically) to the point of being too scared to do anything, so I don't know why anyone would think I want a pet pillow. I like dogs to be dogs and I don't find it admirable when they're bred to disregard self-preservation for the sake of human games, or even, to some extent, human welfare (why should they be expected to be less selfish than humans?). That's all.
> 
> And, last I'll say about "gameness": that's absolutely not how the majority of "pit bull people" on forums or blogs or in real life describe "gameness". Too bad there can't be a consensus on that one.


Again ... Gameness is a TERRIER/hunting dog trait, not just a pibble trait, right?just saying.

Most dogs have some level of drive, it's up to the owner to focus that into something useful. Or, like many breed pages say, they will invent **** to do and it won't be pleasant.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Meh, I didn't say it had to bother anyone else. I was just uncomfortable by the whole "deeply bred in trait" thing, particularly when it became harmful. I've never met a dog who "just existed" unless it was beaten down (physically or psychologically) to the point of being too scared to do anything, so I don't know why anyone would think I want a pet pillow. I like dogs to be dogs and I don't find it admirable when they're bred to disregard self-preservation for the sake of human games, or even, to some extent, human welfare (why should they be expected to be less selfish than humans?). That's all.
> 
> And, last I'll say about "gameness": that's absolutely not how the majority of "pit bull people" on forums or blogs or in real life describe "gameness". Too bad there can't be a consensus on that one.


Oh for christ's sake.



> I like dogs to be dogs and I don't find it admirable when they're bred to disregard self-preservation for the sake of human games,


PLEASE, PLEASE come tell my dog how he isnt a dog because he was bred for a purpose.

Please come explain to him that he's being whiny for nothing when he pouts when I leave with the new service dog in training, and is sad he cant come to get worked (yelled at and suffering, I guess?) with and go out in public.

Also, let him know that his love of getting things and bringing them back to me is totally selfish on our part, apologize to him for us hoomans being so awful, and he really should go do something that he wasn't bred to do and doesn't enjoy, like herding sheep.

I'm sorry but that is just total and utter b***crap.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Why would I want a dog to do something he doesn't enjoy? Like I said, I never said anyone has to agree with me. Just an existential crisis I've had for a while .


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Why would I want a dog to do something he doesn't enjoy? Like I said, I never said anyone has to agree with me. Just an existential crisis I've had for a while .


Well... I'm not really sure. I guess to make sure that the poor dog isn't being exploited by us humans?



> A dog who is born with that trait manifesting strongly does not get to choose whether he/she will exhibit that trait. It's programmed into their DNA. It can't be forced---it's either there ir it's not---but *it's not because the dog chooses to be that way. *


Are you implying that given the choice, Nug would choose to not have a love of something? That Nug himself, would be HAPPIER if he was just "meh" about everything?

I'm pretty sure that a dog wouldn't choose that.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Why would I want a dog to do something he doesn't enjoy? Like I said, I never said anyone has to agree with me. Just an existential crisis I've had for a while .


But, but a dog with drive ENJOYS working! It's not like they are working for free, they work for a reward, it's up to the handler or owner to determine what that reward is! It can be treats, a toy, the work itself etc ... it's no different than when a human earns a paycheck! But just like people, some dogs just plain enjoy their work, getting "paid" is just icing on the cake.

Yeesh!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Rescued said:


> I dont even know about the rest of this argument haha. What I am debating is that somehow using a dog with a will do do what its been bred for (drive) and using that will in situations we might find aversive and difficult as people (game) is not a cruel thing, and does not make the dog a robot.
> 
> Particularly when insinuating that service dogs with drive or "game" (JB's example) is somehow a negative thing. I hate nothing more then when people insinuate that service dogs dont love their jobs. Guess what happens if they don't? They go home to the puppy raiser and become a pet.



Oh no. I was just pointing out the person who said 'why not use that OCD drive and make it work for you'. OCD is not drive. If what Willowy is talking about is actually OCD, then yeah, it's an actual 'flaw' in the dog - by virtue of being OCD, not by virtue of being drive.

Then she went on, and I don't even know what to say. Wait, yes I do: 

ALL DOGS ARE BRED TO DO THINGS FOR PEOPLE. EVERY SINGLE BREED AND MIX. DOGS EXIST TO PLAY SILLY HUMAN GAMES AND DISREGARD THEIR OWN WELL BEING. It's kind of what domestication *is*. They, quite literally, exist to please us and serve our purposes. There is no breed of dog, no INDIVIDUAL dog, that does not exist as the result of a human 'creating' that dog to meet some human need. There is certainly no single dog who was not BRED to bond with humans. So saying you want a dog to 'work for you because of the bond' - Well that's all well and good but that bonding to humans is as genetically wired into the dog is the desire to fetch a ball. May exhibit more or less strongly in various breeds or individuals, but in the case of breed at least? That dog is STILL working with you (or not) based on generations upon generations of being BRED TO WORK FOR HUMANS. not always WITH humans, but to meet human needs.

There is nothing else. Ever. Anywhere. At all. From LGD to Hounds to Huskies to Poodles to Labs to Herding Breeds to Pugs - They were all created by humans to do things for them and, in the case of the vast majority, to bond to us - or some other animal we CHOSE for it. Not the dog. Not the individual, not the breed. *WE* selectively bred those dogs to work with us, bond with us, and the whole nine yards.

Dogs who will chase the rabbit for us to shoot, run through rough terrain to hunt, put themselves in danger to guard livestock, retrieve game through cold water, herd cattle or sheep for hours on end in spite of their own exhaustion (and size difference), take on badgers in their holes or clear rats out of barns, or even just become too small and dependent upon people to survive on their own - that's what domestication IS and what dogs exist for. Ever. Single. Dog. That. Exists.

Drive? Drive is just desire. That's pretty much the extent of it. How driven just means 'how much they want it'.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Willowy said:


> What is it called when a dog wants to jump off a cliff to get her toy (bounced wrong, bad throw, whatever) and has to be dragged back to the car because she WILL go back and jump off that cliff to get that toy if allowed to? I always thought that was drive but I'm not really sure. Most Labs I know/have known are like that.


Ive always defined it as toy/ball drive. Nug is high drive for a labrador. I ENJOY that, because it means he WANTS to focus on something and use his brain. Also: you can use toys as rewards. 

Wut? He finds it REWARDING when I throw a ball? And gets it even when I dont ask him to? And then watches my arm and wags his tail when it goes into throwing motion? And then brings it to me so I can please please do it again??

Brainwashed. I should be ashamed of myself for artifically creating this robot dog.

(see? see how stupid that last sentence sounds in context?)


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Also, I'm really not sure where an animal lacking in self preservation is so "unnatural" and "must be bred for it".

Mother goose biting your ankles to save her baby geese, even when you swat at her?

Father going without food for a meal because there is only enough food to feed either him or his children?

I mean if the second option has been "bred" for, then that means that if we want to return to being all natural and non selective, we need to all just think of ourselves and not others.

Sooooooo...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yeah, but animals do contain the biological drive/instinct to see their genes continue on. That's present in almost every species of animal out there. I don't think that's the same thing as a dog who is going to do uncomfortable thing for people at risk of its own well being. 

I'm not saying dogs won't do more for people they trust. I'm not saying bond doesn't have anything to do with it.

I am saying that dogs have something going on as a result of breeding that wild animals don't. Domestication, at its heart, changes animals. I don't think it's a bad thing at all. I just find it remarkably hypocritical to claim that it's 'creepy' when a retriever retrieves as a result of being bred to retrieve instead of a bond. Every single dog out there that has a bond with people has been selectively bred to, uh, work with people in some capacity. If you find the idea of dogs being 'programmed by genetics' to do things disturbing, you probably shouldn't have a dog at all, because they're ALL "Programmed" to bond with you in the first place.

I mean, I'm not claiming that the individual dog doesn't bond with the individual person, but you're not exactly taming a wild animal here and starting from scratch, you know? That dog's hardwired for a long time to bond with people. You're not exactly starting with a wild wolf and forming a bond, here. If a retriever doesn't have a choice but to retrieve (SNORT) then a dog doesn't have a choice except bonding with people, and it should all be creepy and unsettling and icky.

(And I don't think it is. In fact I think the whole attitude is dumb, but I think trying to take it part of the way is even more hypocritical and ridiculous)


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, but animals do contain the biological drive/instinct to see their genes continue on. That's present in almost every species of animal out there. I don't think that's the same thing as a dog who is going to do uncomfortable thing for people at risk of its own well being.


I thought about that right after I posted it, so let me include examples like "a complete stranger taking a walk running into a burning building to save a screaming person" and "people when 9/11 happened who stopped or went back up to help other random people".

Which really, truly, if those kinds of actions grind to a halt? I guess its more natural and whatever, but I'll take compassion and caring over "how nature intended us to be" any day.

canine example: http://blog.theanimalrescuesite.com/herodogs911/

Wut? Dogs going into rubble to save random people who aren't their owners, and don't have treats for them, WITHOUT being beaten?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yes, absolutely.

But would that dog have done that if it weren't the product of how many generations of selective breeding for association with humans? Would a wolf or coyote? No.

I think dogs are awesome. I love them. But I don't buy they do things without it being, somewhat the result of the fact that humans created dogs as we know them. And that the human/canine bond is something that is more likely to be there than not - no treats or beating required- because of domestication and thousands of years of selective breeding behind it.

Unlike willowy I don't have a problem with that, but I think pretending dogs aren't the product of us domesticating them, and they aren't wired to bond with and work for us is as inaccurate as claiming evolution doesn't exist. It may not be the full picture, but it sure as neck sets the stage.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

yep not arguing with you there.

That brings the question (totally off topic) what created that trait in humans? Is that just "empathy?"


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Willowy said:


> Meh, I didn't say it had to bother anyone else. I was just uncomfortable by the whole "deeply bred in trait" thing, particularly when it became harmful. *I've never met a dog who "just existed" *unless it was beaten down (physically or psychologically) to the point of being too scared to do anything, so I don't know why anyone would think I want a pet pillow. I like dogs to be dogs and I don't find it admirable when they're bred to disregard self-preservation for the sake of human games, or even, to some extent, human welfare (why should they be expected to be less selfish than humans?). That's all.
> 
> And, last I'll say about "gameness": that's absolutely not how the majority of "pit bull people" on forums or blogs or in real life describe "gameness". Too bad there can't be a consensus on that one.
> 
> What is it called when a dog wants to jump off a cliff to get her toy (bounced wrong, bad throw, whatever) and has to be dragged back to the car because she WILL go back and jump off that cliff to get that toy if allowed to? I always thought that was drive but I'm not really sure. Most Labs I know/have known are like that.


I actually have a dog like that, and considering I have had her since she was 1 week old I can see with almost absolute certainty she was not ever "beaten down" to the point she is afraid to move. This is just her personality. Oddly she is a terrier mix. Her goal in life is to sleep on the couch or even better, in some one's lap/behind their back/under the covers. Yep, she is essentially a dog pillow. In fact, there are days I almost forget she exists until I realize I feel mildly uncomfortable and try to shift positions only to bump into something alive. There will be Blue, wedged behind my back. She is absolutely perfect for my son, he is autistic and she is a super little therapy dog for him. She doesn't flinch when he tics or randomly talks very loudly/gestures erratically, and she loves to cuddle while he reads and watches movies. Plus she required pretty much no training, she has had impeccable house manners from the start. I am sure part of that has to do with how I raised her but honestly she would have been an easy dog for almost anyone. You could leave her alone all day and she would be fine if a little lonely (she gets along with other dogs and cats though so a friend would make it just fine for her). 

I have mostly kept out of this discussion as it seemed pretty pointless. Duke is "one of those dogs" who would let his human beat him to death without ever stopping it. I am a horrible person because I "made him work." When he was young and well Duke would lay on my son while he had violent tantrums, flinging himself around, kicking, hitting, and biting. His help was invaluable to my son's safety and well being. To this day, despite my son's decreased need for his help and his own illness he would be by my son's side. He cries because he cannot be with the child he loves. Duke has been a very happy and loved dog. His life has been filled with joy and yes, work. I would not describe him as game, he is not a terrier. He does however have the boldness and spirit to continue to persevere in the face of insurmountable odds. He would lay down his life for his child, he doesn't even think about it just does what needs to be done. I see no cruelty in admiring him for that, he is an admirable dog. When choosing a dog for my prospective PSD I chose a dog with traits I believed to be similar to Duke's.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, I know that dogs are all bred for human amusement. Sometimes that whole thing makes me uncomfortable, sometimes it doesn't, depends on my mood I think . I guess when it's ONE trait bred in so strongly, it tends to bug me more. Seems unbalanced or something.

Anyway, I was randomly Googling, trying to find out how many pit bulls have been put down in Sioux City since the ban (can't find it so far. I think it's out there though) and found this blog (I like him so far), he claims that breed history doesn't matter anymore, since dogs are largely what we've bred for in the past few generations, not farther back: http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/04/how-important-is-breed-history-really.html
Thoughts on that?


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Meh, I didn't say it had to bother anyone else. I was just uncomfortable by the whole "deeply bred in trait" thing, particularly when it became harmful. I've never met a dog who "just existed" unless it was beaten down (physically or psychologically) to the point of being too scared to do anything, so I don't know why anyone would think I want a pet pillow. I like dogs to be dogs and I don't find it admirable when they're bred to disregard self-preservation for the sake of human games, or even, to some extent, human welfare (why should they be expected to be less selfish than humans?). That's all.


An extremely high bite inhibition and stress threshold is *not* harmful.
Being able to bite an assailant, for this breed, is *NOT* self preservation. Its a DEATH SENTENCE. Have you read / seen the prejudice this breed faces? If this breed were more willing to bite people, there would be no way to save it from the ignorant people that want them dead. And apparently that includes you, since you don't think people should care to appreciate or preserve them.

And no, I don't believe you like dogs to be dogs. Because when dogs are dogs, you seem to have a lot to take issue with. When dogs are pillows / accessories, who have no working drive or purpose... That seems to be what you think dogs should be. And that is not a dog being a dog.

And again, the high stress threshold and strong bite inhibition *IS* a form of self preservation. *Especially* in this breed.



> And, last I'll say about "gameness": that's absolutely not how the majority of "pit bull people" on forums or blogs or in real life describe "gameness". Too bad there can't be a consensus on that one.
> 
> What is it called when a dog wants to jump off a cliff to get her toy (bounced wrong, bad throw, whatever) and has to be dragged back to the car because she WILL go back and jump off that cliff to get that toy if allowed to? I always thought that was drive but I'm not really sure. Most Labs I know/have known are like that.


Then those people, like you, have no idea what they're talking about. And I'm on forums and speak with breeders and other APBT fanciers regularly. The only people I talk to that don't understand gameness, are people that can't even identify their own dog's breed half the time or who have been brainwashed to think Gameness refers strictly to fighting dogs by other people who have no idea what they're talking about. And again, the APBT is not the only breed that is game. Most game breeds have *never even been used for fighting*. 

Gameness is not about aggression. Its not about a desire or willingness to fight and its not about Dog Aggression. 

That is toy drive, and *maybe* a not so bright dog (sorry), not gameness and not indicative of the extent of drive in all dogs. :/
A game dog would still try and find a way to get the ball and take risks to get it, if their handler wanted it or *they* wanted it bad enough, but they aren't going to go flinging themselves needlessly off a cliff to do it if there are other possible alternatives. My boy is a ball fetch nut too, lots of prey and toy drive, he'll play fetch or frisbee for hours, get airborn, bounce off walls, the works. But he wouldn't throw himself off a cliff after a ball. If a ball went off a cliff, he'd stop and look at me to say "You get it." while he huffed off to wait.

Game and high drive dogs are not robots. They'll take risks to get what they want or complete a task. But they aren't going to carelessly kill themselves in the process, such as diving needlessly off a cliff after a ball.

And thats the same thing about bites. Resorting to a bite, is not the only way a dog can take measures for self preservation. And in this breed, resorting to a bite on a human in self defense, rather than the defense of another. Is a death sentence. 

A retriever might be given a pass, circumstances considered. So on and so on. Pit Bulls, Rots, Dobermans, ect. Aren't usually going to be given that luxury after the fact. 

As it is, APBT are already maligned for many bites they *DIDN'T EVEN COMMIT", imagine the trouble they'd be in with society if they were more willing to bite. 

And the dogs that have no desire to do anything, the companion breeds that just like to hang out, be couch potatoes with their owners... You think they weren't bred to be that way? That that is somehow the natural baseline of a dog? Quite the opposite. Domestic dogs, since their creation, have been bred for working purpose. Those bred strictly for the novelty and entertainment of being a pet, lacking drive or gameness, was a rare thing... But they're still bred for human convenience and to a greater extent than working breeds / working dogs.





CptJack said:


> Drive? Drive is just desire. That's pretty much the extent of it. How driven just means 'how much they want it'.


Yep. Prey Drive : Desire to hunt / chase / kill. Toy Drive : Desire to get the toy. Food Drive : Desire to get the food. So on and so forth.


And Gameness is that they'll get what they want at all costs. They desire to complete the task, no matter how hard, and they'll see it done. Gameness is heart, tenacity, the devotion with which they apply themselves to the task at hand. The desire to rise to the occasion.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> And Gameness is that they'll get what they want at all costs. They desire to complete the task, no matter how hard, and they'll see it done. Gameness is heart, tenacity, the devotion with which they apply themselves to the task at hand. The desire to rise to the occasion.


But any breed can do that. Yet the term is only used for terriers, and, by many people, only APBTs. What's up with that?


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, I know that dogs are all bred for human amusement. Sometimes that whole thing makes me uncomfortable, sometimes it doesn't, depends on my mood I think . I guess when it's ONE trait bred in so strongly, it tends to bug me more. Seems unbalanced or something.
> 
> Anyway, I was randomly Googling, trying to find out how many pit bulls have been put down in Sioux City since the ban (can't find it so far. I think it's out there though) and found this blog (I like him so far), he claims that breed history doesn't matter anymore, since dogs are largely what we've bred for in the past few generations, not farther back: http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/04/how-important-is-breed-history-really.html
> Thoughts on that?


I think its a load of crap.

What breed enthusiasts have been breeding for in the past few generations, is based on what was bred for in the past, traits that still exist and should be preserved. If not breeding for those traits, they don't care for the breed, just how it looks. History of a breed will ALWAYS MATTER when preserving a breed, and understanding which traits are relevant to preservation and purpose and which are not and can be improved on without compromising the integrity of the breed. If you disregard the past, you lose understanding for the breed. You lose understanding of how it became what it is. And you lose understanding of how to preserve and improve.

I understand what he is trying to say, and I understand he has good intentions. But he is going about it the wrong way by suggesting the history is irrelevant to dogs of today.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Willowy said:


> But any breed can do that. Yet the term is only used for terriers, and, by many people, only APBTs. What's up with that?


It is *not* only used for terriers. This has been stated repeatedly.

The average pet owner never bothers to learn about their breeds, let alone their working traits. Most hunters, know what gameness is, its discussed more often because its observed more often and is directly relevant to their dog's purpose. 

And some working breeds utilize gameness, but may use different terminology. Rots and GSD, for example. You'll generally hear the words "Hard", "Confident" and "Courage", Gameness is essentially a combination of these three traits. A dog that can over come and push through stressors, resilient against negative influences and will throw itself into the task at hand, even in the face of a serious threat and confident enough to feel it can succeed and see it through. 

Someone that picks their puppy out at the local shelter or pet shop, have little cause to think about it. Or when they hear it, have been led to assume its a bad thing. Many don't even know what it means if not more familiar with the breeds, so likely wouldn't even recognize it in their own dogs.

A dog of any breed can show itself to be game. But in many breeds a game dog is the exception, rather than the rule. In APBT, and most terriers and many hunting & multi-purpose working breeds, its expected to be the rule, rather than the exception. And the APBT is, to many, the living embodiment of this trait.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

It is talked about in all sorts of breeds.

ACDs, I hear it called gameness a lot.

BCs, not so much, but you still hear it ALL OVER THE PLACE. The fact that you have to pay attention to the dog, because that dog will work past the point of exhaustion and injury, in all sorts of condition, to get the job done. Not backing down in the face of an animal that is bigger than it, stronger than it, and needs to be moved. People talk about it in labs, in setters and spaniels and guardian breeds and everything between.

It is NOT terrier specific, not fighting specific. It means a dog doing what it was bred to do with its whole heart and being. It's just a 'never say die' attitude and a refusal to be... intimidated, I guess, or swayed away from it's job/drive/desire. It's not a breed trait, it's a DOG trait. Just like drive, the expression of it may be different but I'd say most dogs have some of it, even foofy little companion breeds and I'd hazard danged near all working breeds do - because it's what it takes TO work. Some dogs have a lot of it. But it's not some mystical thing that's only present in a tiny percentage of dogs, or only fighting dogs, or only in blood sports.

It's not talking about dog fighting sport (games) or hunting games or herding games.

It means the dog saying "I'M GAME!" (I'm up for that!)


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> It is talked about in all sorts of breeds.
> 
> ACDs, I hear it called gameness a lot.
> 
> ...


Maybe it depends on the area, but here its called "grit" for herding and working dogs. And "gameness" for terriers. 

@Willowy I just ... I dont even know what to say about your posts, because it is clear you don't know what you are talking about and others have tried to educate you and you just won't listen.

I just ... sigh.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, I know that dogs are all bred for human amusement. Sometimes that whole thing makes me uncomfortable, sometimes it doesn't, depends on my mood I think . I guess when it's ONE trait bred in so strongly, it tends to bug me more. Seems unbalanced or something.


 Um....WHAT!?
Dogs and humans, in the past (or at least according to what evidence and understanding currently), have had a symbiotic relationship. Beyond the scavenging of human food for survival, and the presence of dogs in a settlement, discouraging the presence of other (more troublesome) animals, there is the relationship that grew into hunting. I'm sorry, hunting for food, and having a dog involved in that (which also would feed the dog!) is NOT amusement. It is survival. The supreme basics of Darwanism involves "survival of the fittest", the traits most fit to assist in the symbiotic relationship between man and dog were bred for, if that involved breeding dogs that were more prone to attack wolves, or attack boar, or even attack other dogs, that wasn't always for amusement. 

Although I do find dog fighting despicable and disgusting, there are people in history that most likely made their (and perhaps some that still do) entire livings, fed their families, paid for their homes (including feeding their dogs and sheltering them), from the money made on dog fighting, which yes, is an UGLY part of the history of the breed, but nevertheless is there....it may have amused some, but it still was a symbiotic (if not admittedly cruel) relationship. I'll even mention the Swissy.....which was used by the army as draft animals during WWII. Just like present day working dogs I'm very sure they cared as well as they could for them, since their survival, and the outcome of war could depend on the dogs. I'm not even going to go into herding and other functions of farm dogs....it is a history long spanning from early, to current modern day.

In more modern contexts, there are dogs that have saved the lives of police officers, military personnel and civilians alike. I've met dogs that do things like that, they LOVE it. There are service dogs, who help people with any number of disabilities, and for that they get fed, and cared for, some better than others, but there is a major bond there, and no denying it. There is a symbiotic relationship. 

I'll even go so far as to mention Caeda....yeah, she is partially for my amusement, I'll never deny that, but even her and I have a symbiotic relationship, though she has never been trained to it, she just IS. I was diagnosed with PTSD and depression at one point, several years ago, right around the time (no shock) that my neck was doing its jittery spasm thing. Caeda has done for me more than any drug ever given to me by any doctor for any of those problems. I was at a point that I would have full scale panic attacks if I had to drive in the winter. Caeda had to go to the vet, I would pull myself together and make that happen, for her. Without her pulling me out of myself, I would have gone to much darker places than I had been too. 

Amusement, I don't call that amusement, I call that a bond, more than employer and employee, different than that between two humans. It is a unique and beautiful thing, that yes, has had some horrible times in its past, some truly ugly things have happened, as has happened in human history between humans. To say that all dogs are for the purpose of amusement is a dishonor to the species in my opinion. Some dogs may be just for amusement, but I've found, by opening myself up to what Caeda can do for me, and what I can do for her, there is so much more than a toy that I take out of the box when I feel like playing with it. If it weren't for larger purposes than amusement, dogs would still be feral. 

Perhaps the history, and the fact that I have a deep respect for it makes you uncomfortable, if it does, come back and read this when you are in a different mood and think about it.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Greater Swiss said:


> Um....WHAT!?
> Dogs and humans, in the past (or at least according to what evidence and understanding currently), have had a symbiotic relationship. Beyond the scavenging of human food for survival, and the presence of dogs in a settlement, discouraging the presence of other (more troublesome) animals, there is the relationship that grew into hunting. I'm sorry, hunting for food, and having a dog involved in that (which also would feed the dog!) is NOT amusement. It is survival. The supreme basics of Darwanism involves "survival of the fittest", the traits most fit to assist in the symbiotic relationship between man and dog were bred for, if that involved breeding dogs that were more prone to attack wolves, or attack boar, or even attack other dogs, that wasn't always for amusement.
> 
> Although I do find dog fighting despicable and disgusting, there are people in history that most likely made their (and perhaps some that still do) entire livings, fed their families, paid for their homes (including feeding their dogs and sheltering them), from the money made on dog fighting, which yes, is an UGLY part of the history of the breed, but nevertheless is there....it may have amused some, but it still was a symbiotic (if not admittedly cruel) relationship. I'll even mention the Swissy.....which was used by the army as draft animals during WWII. Just like present day working dogs I'm very sure they cared as well as they could for them, since their survival, and the outcome of war could depend on the dogs. I'm not even going to go into herding and other functions of farm dogs....it is a history long spanning from early, to current modern day.
> ...


I don't understand her ... I just dont.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Rescued said:


> yep not arguing with you there.
> 
> That brings the question (totally off topic) what created that trait in humans? Is that just "empathy?"


I don't know that anyone KNOWS for sure, but I'd hazard it's part of what made people able to live together as a group/society, and be safer as a result. Sort of the same reasons wolves pack and hunt communally, lions have prides, etc. It's just that, as humans, we're A-) Not simply limited to our family groups and b-) are able to think more abstractly. 

I could be way off base, and I don't mean that's ALL humans are anymore than I believe that's all dogs are today. 

But way back in our evolutionary history, I'd bet the reason for this was still 'survival of a group, even at the expense of self'. "Social Contract" is a good term to google, too.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

First of all..... I have to comment on this in more detail....


Willowy said:


> Selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering.


No it is NOT.... Animal have been selected for specific traits ever since the first two animals were put together for the purpose of breeding. 

That is NOT EVEN close to genetic engineering in any sense.... 

This IS what Genetic Engineering... 
Genetic engineering is a targeted and powerful method of introducing desirable traits into animals using recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology. DNA is the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.

And Furthermore.... Genetic engineering is regulated and controlled by the FDA.... There MAY be some scientist in a lab somewhere playing around with genetic engineering in dogs... But the dog community at large is NOT and never have done it. 

Now I am going to expand on this...


Willowy said:


> But it would be like being helped by a programmed robot---not meaningful at all.
> 
> .


A programed robot? No.... Far from it.... A dogs desire to work and willingness to do everything it takes to get the job done is NOTHING like a programmed Robot. 

Calling a drivey dog that can and will work hard is like calling a doctor that works day and night for years to cure a disease, a programmed robot.
Or a talented musician a programmed robot. 
Or an inventor...
Explorer..... 
Or anyone that works hard to achieve a goal... 



Willowy said:


> Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Just had to get that part out of the way .
> 
> But anyway. . .no, I don't think I'm explaining my feelings on the subject too well. All I can say is, when my Lab could not be prevented from retrieving, she HAD TO do it like some kind of OCD, she nearly got herself killed doing it several times, and it wasn't even _important_. . .I was actually kind of horrified, all I could think is "what have we humans done? We have completely ruined nature".


I am not sure where to begin with this one.... 

Lets start with..... Retrievers retrieve and LIKE it... Herders Herd and LIKE it. Hounds hunt and LIKE it..... Most dogs with a strong enough drive work in the role they were bred for are HAPPIEST if they are doing that task. OR the owner channels that drive into another venue...... 

I will say, that at times.... High drive dogs WILL develop behaviors to the point they become neurotic or might appear to some as OCD... But calling it OCD would be an incorrect statement... This is something developed. Because they have the wrong owner. In the right owners hands this same dog would have blossomed into an amazing dog... You can even take a dog with all kinds of neurotic behaviors... Such as the constant neurotic need to retrieve, but it with an owner that is willing to put a little effort into the dog, and ALL of those neurotic behaviors will go away... People would be amazed how quickly the transformation takes place in many cases...

A high energy, high drive dog owned by someone that is unwilling to channel that drive and energy is a recipe for disaster. The dogs develop neurotic behaviors -constant tail chasing, self mutilation, constant whining, being destructive, constant need to fetch or retrieve, constantly herding, aggressive, oh and BARKING.... Constant Barking etc. Do so to keep from literally losing their mind from the boredom. It is beyond unfair to a high energy, high drive dog to expect them to be a foot warmer and couch potato.... Such a dog will be far more successful at eating the couch and chewing off the foot, than sitting or warming... It is a COPING mechanism.... The dog is bored out of its mind....

I know of a year old border collie that is being held near me right now...That came from this exact environment. The original owner should have bought a basset hound and a painting of a border collie..... The dog came here, a WRECK..... Three weeks ago... Snarky, fits, temper tantrums, bloody tail, bad spots and chewed skin The dog was hoarse he barked so much. .... In three weeks he is sweet, friendly, affectionate, well mannered, sores and scabs from self abuse are healed or nearly so. Coat is growing back... This dog is brilliant.... And frankly that much has not been done with him.... He gets to run in a fenced area about three acres with several other high energy dogs, twice a day... For about an hour each time... Gets two 15 minute obedience lessons and gets two 30 minute sheep sessions and a 30 minute session on some heifers each week. Hoping to put him in a real working home with a cowboy. So he is learning the basic commands and getting the idea. . The REST of the day he is in a Kennel..... and is quiet.... First time I met this dog, I could hear his raspy yodel from 300 yards away... When I went in the kennel with him, he did not know whether to bite me, pee on me, knock me down etc. He ended up knocking me down, peeing on me and ripping my shirt... 

I saw this dog tonight... He is so sweet... Great manners polite... .He is brilliant, affable, biddable.... This dog is a ROCK star in the making... If I was not holding my space for a Merlin puppy..... I could live here... And I am NOT a Border Collie guy.... 

ALL the dog needed was a little exercise and a little attention.... His original owner was not a bad guy.... Just the WRONG guy for THAT guy.....

MOST dog issues are the case wrong dog/wrong owner.

In the scenario above... The neurotic behavior was the result of the dog not having an outlet....

If the dog was nearly killed over the behavior, it sounds like there was a management issue as well. 

And this scenario is repeated time and


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

If we're being honest, selective breeding really IS a form of genetic engineering. Crude and not as precisely targeted, but it IS artificially selecting which genes are passed on.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> First of all..... I have to comment on this in more detail....
> 
> 
> No it is NOT.... Animal have been selected for specific traits ever since the first two animals were put together for the purpose of breeding.
> ...


Everything I was thinking in a nutshell ... great post!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> If we're being honest, selective breeding really IS a form of genetic engineering. Crude and not as precisely targeted, but it IS artificially selecting which genes are passed on.


Well.... I see it as a stretch..... In genetic engineering... A human is manipulating and inserting genes.... 

In selective breeding... You are pairing dogs with qualities you desire to reproduce and HOPING for the best....


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

If it wasn't genetic engineering, we wouldn't have chihuahuas and great danes.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> If it wasn't genetic engineering, we wouldn't have chihuahuas and great danes.


sure we would....

An example of genetic engineering, would be to manipulate the genes in a dairy cow so that it would give milk with very similar qualities to human milk... 

Or releasing male mosquitoes that were genetically manipulated to expire during reproduction prior to fertilization. 


Or releasing male screw flies that were genetically engineered to be sterile. 

Or.... Injecting e coli and mouse dna into pig embryos... Resulting in a pig that produces 70 percent less gas... 
Environmental friendly pigs...


Putting to dogs together with traits you desire is still just hoping... We know enough about genetics now we can know our odds... In many cases at least....

In genetic engineering... The hope is not needed.. .


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

sassafras said:


> If it wasn't genetic engineering, we wouldn't have chihuahuas and great danes.


Yep.

It's a very, very long term and crude sort of thing, but we *are* manipulating the gene pool in a fairly extreme way. Look at the diversity and extremity of dog traits present within various breeds. It's not fast and precise, no, but it absolutely artificially manipulating the make-up of an animal to fit the vision of the humans. 

At the very least, it's not natural selection. What we see without interference and manipulation from people is very, very different from the breeds we get when natural selection is in charge over generations. And come to that, it doesn't even take that many generation for even extreme dogs (say a pug or yorkie) to carry on and become a mid-sized, brown, prick eared, short coated dog.

And we know enough about traits now, and dominant and recessives, for MOST things with dogs to manipulate those genetics to get what we want. YES, there are still some odds at play in generation one, maybe 2, with recessives, but over several? Nope. We can't control every gene in an animal with 'more clinical' methods than we can with pairing particular dogs. 

It's still deliberate, artificial manipulation of genetics. 



> genetic engineering
> 
> the deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.


Selective breeding does that.

And no, I am not claiming there isn't some difference between what we call genetic engineering today (as a specific method/set of methods) and selective breeding, but selective breeding is a crude form of genetic engineering *In concept*


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

The outcome doesn't determine what is genetic engineering, the process does. The process of artificially manipulating who/what reproduces. Complex or simple outcome, it's all the same.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> The outcome doesn't determine what is genetic engineering, the process does. The process of artificially manipulating who/what reproduces. Complex or simple outcome, it's all the same.


Okay... I will concede.... But I still say they are FAR FAR FAR apart..


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Okay... I will concede.... But I still say they are FAR FAR FAR apart..


I agree.

If selective breeding is genetic engineering...
Well... Then humans are longest experiment in genetic engineering in existence. Our breeding isn't guided by instinct, random matings or strict reproduction. Mates are selected based on variable qualities, historically limited by social castes and family lines, take mates from genetic pools we otherwise would never have access to and encourage and accommodate breedings that wouldn't naturally happen otherwise.

Selective Breeding and Genetic Engineering are two very different animals to me.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

And, after some quick searching. It seems that even scientist distinguish between genetic engineering and selective breeding.

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/organisms/royal-commission-gm/gm-overview.pdf

"What is genetic modification?
For centuries farmers have used selective breeding to improve both crops and
stock by breeding from the plants or animals that had the qualities they wanted to
bring out and strengthen. This was the only way they had to develop animals and
crops that were more productive and resistant to disease, and could cope better
with extremes of climate.

Today, scientists can find individual genes that control particular characteristics,
separate them out, change them, and transfer them directly into the cells of an
animal, plant, bacterium or virus. Because the DNA code is known and is
common to all life, it is also possible to produce synthetic genes. This technology
is called genetic modification or genetic engineering.
There are three major differences between selective breeding and genetic
modification:

• In genetic modification, scientists take individual genes from one plant or
animal and put them into the DNA of the cells of another. They may also
make changes to (modify) an existing gene.
• Genetic modification provides a way of giving a plant or animal new,
inheritable qualities that is much faster than traditional breeding methods;
these qualities may themselves be entirely new.
• Genes can be transferred in ways that are not found in nature, between
different species and even between animals and plants."


Also I'll point out that selective breeding requires natural compatability for breeding, and will usually naturally cull those that are only somewhat compatible.

You can't cross a dog and cat, you can't cross a cow and horse, a chicken and snake, ect. No dogs with wings, no pink stripes on a tabby, no venomous chickens...

Geeps, Mules, Guinee x Chicken crosses, ect... For example, Are usually sterile.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, removes those barriers and you can introduce genetics that could *never* be introduced via selective breeding. Like growing human ears on mice backs or introducing traits of spider silk to goats milk.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

sassafras said:


> The outcome doesn't determine what is genetic engineering, the process does. The process of artificially manipulating who/what reproduces. Complex or simple outcome, it's all the same.


Yeah, I think mostly what I meant was that there is a very specific thing that people think of when they think genetic engineering. Almost like it's a trademarked process (see post above), with a little tm at the end rather than the generalized 'influencing the genetics of an animal through some sort of intervention'. Both of those definitions are actually very, very much recognized within the scientific community, but only the first is something most people are willing to buy, because genetic engineering is unnatural and scary and selective breeding isn't. Selective breeding is crude genetic engineering to be sure, much more limited, but it's still altering the genetics of an animal deliberately and with intent.

The 'end result' in this case was that genetics had been manipulated/tampered with, not the Final Product of either a pug or a cloned sheep. 

I'm too feverish and sick to be any more clear.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I can understand both sides of the drive thing...

I mean, sometimes myself I get caught up in resolving an IT problem to the point that I will suddenly realize I -really- need to eat or I might pass out, but while I'm in the zone I don't think about that. Technically that is a good and bad trait- good because I'm motivated to get the job done, bad because that motivation could be at the risk of my personal wellbeing.

I do understand where Willowy is coming from; I had to remind my bf (he's not used to being around dogs) when we got Luna that he had to pay attention to her to decide when to stop an activity, as opposed to waiting for her to tell him when she was done. Dogs will go as long as you let them if they're having fun (generally speaking) so it's up to you to be on the lookout for when they're getting too exhausted or at risk. I can see how that trait could be abused by someone who didn't have the dog's best interest at heart.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm not saying they're exactly the same thing, just different levels of sophistication of a similar process. Humans want a specific trait in a specific organism, and they artificially manipulate who reproduces and how to try to get that trait. But somehow it's better or more natural with selective breeding, when there's really very little natural about that... there aren't packs of wild Jersey cows or border collies roaming the wilderness. We made them that way.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people are horrified by genetic engineering (not saying anyone here has that position) but a-ok with selective breeding of animals and plants.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

If your talking about the people that are horrified by GM crops and such.... It's because there could be unknown health risk. There is a big difference between selecting two different plants and breeding them together to create something different vs putting a segment of DNA inside of bacteria, messing around with it, removing it and then injecting it back into a plant to create something new. 

I just watched spider man 2 last night.... Perfect example (although quite unrealistic at the moment... Maybe by 2050 or something) of how wrong genetic engineering can go lol


----------



## Skipper'D (Aug 18, 2014)

I tried to read most of this thread and some of this may have been pointed out already....I tried not to get in the thread but the more I read...well...it is typical rants of pit bull owners defending the breed and justify the dogs behavior-along with belittling anyone that doesn't agree with their views.

IMO-I don't feel this breed or any breed should be banned, however, I do feel that pitbull and pitbull cross owners should have extra insurance-be it home owners or other-Most responsible pitbull owners that have a full understanding of the breed will not have issue with that since they are responsible pitbull owners. Its the pit bull owners that deny the fact that this breed can be dangerous and/or wear blinders. These people are the ones that give all pit bulls and responsible pit bull owners a bad name.

All dogs bite-dogs bite for any number of reasons-most, not all breeds can be pulled off or stopped before major damage-Most, not all pitbulls can't-
Its the level of damage that pitbulls can inflict on the human body and domesticated animals IME-that is different between other breeds bites

I have worked many dog bites from a lot of different breed of dogs and none compare to the damage that pitbulls inflict-Out of the 100's of dog bites over 15 years-The only DOA's and deaths resulted from pitbulls and pit bull crosses.

With everyone of these dog bites when I interviewed the dog owner, they stated that the dog never showed aggression toward anyone or thing-That this was the first time the dog bit-sadly with some breeds that first bite can end in death.

What makes one of the DOA's so sad is that the child was killed by the family pitbull raised from a puppy, loved, well cared for-never beaten or chained-The dog snapped and because of it drive and game as well as the strength the family pet was able to shred/kill a 9yo boy-the child was dead before his father could respond.

Pit bull defenders will make an excuse for the breed but until you have a child thrown in your arms dead with parents screaming in horror from what just happened-you will continue to be blinded. Open your eyes and see this breed for what it is and respect its power and ability without underestimating it.
Just be responsible and maintain insurance to cover the damage if and when it happens.
Don't ban the breed-that is not the answer....


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> If your talking about the people that are horrified by GM crops and such.... It's because there could be unknown health risk. There is a big difference between selecting two different plants and breeding them together to create something different vs putting a segment of DNA inside of bacteria, messing around with it, removing it and then injecting it back into a plant to create something new.


What is substantively different about it in terms of potential risks? I think the plethora of genetic problems in dogs demonstrates quite well that there's no guarantee only "good" genes are selected for through traditional breeding, so how do you ensure that you don't accidentally link an undesired trait that is a potential threat to human health to a desired trait you are breeding for with artificial selection?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Skipper'D said:


> I tried to read most of this thread and some of this may have been pointed out already....I tried not to get in the thread but the more I read...well...it is typical rants of pit bull owners defending the breed and justify the dogs behavior-along with belittling anyone that doesn't agree with their views.
> 
> IMO-I don't feel this breed or any breed should be banned, however, I do feel that pitbull and pitbull cross owners should have extra insurance-be it home owners or other-Most responsible pitbull owners that have a full understanding of the breed will not have issue with that since they are responsible pitbull owners. Its the pit bull owners that deny the fact that this breed can be dangerous and/or wear blinders. These people are the ones that give all pit bulls and responsible pit bull owners a bad name.
> 
> ...


DOGS DON'T JUST SNAP because of "drive " or "game" what is more likely is the people were inappropriately handling the dog and failed to read the dogs body language, it is very possible the dog was giving signs for months or years that it does NOT like what was being done to it, and one day it had enough (bad breeding can also play a role in dog bites) but it wasn't simply because it was a Pit bull smh

EDIT: you also have to realize that kids do horrible things to dogs that the parents may not know about or the parents may even think it is cute, and as far as APBTS giving the worse bites, i PERSONALLY would rather be attacked by an APBT than a Caucasian Ovcharka... APBTS aren't the "toughest dogs around"

For example


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> DOGS DON'T JUST SNAP because of "drive " or "game" what is more likely is the people were inappropriately handling the dog and failed to read the dogs body language, it is very possible the dog was giving signs for months or years that it does NOT like what was being done to it, and one day it had enough (bad breeding can also play a role in dog bites) but it wasn't simply because it was a Pit bull smh
> 
> EDIT: you also have to realize that kids do horrible things to dogs that the parents may not know about or the parents may even think it is cute, and as far as APBTS giving the worse bites, i PERSONALLY would rather be attacked by an APBT than a Caucasian Ovcharka... APBTS aren't the "toughest dogs around"
> 
> For example


THANK YOU.

I wanted to reply to that bs but I just didn't have the words.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I'm kind of afraid of GSDs because I've met enough poorly bred psychotic animals weighing 80+ lbs who were intent on getting me or Clyde or an innocent human who never interacted with it before.

I've met many more pitbulls than GSD and the most dangerous pitbull I met was a 35 pound dog who had a misplaced prey drive toward small dogs.

I'd choose to fight the 35 pound pitbull over the 85 pound GSD any day.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Excuse me? Why should I have to have extra insurance on my dogs when the first face transplant was caused by a Lab? Why should I carry extra insurance on my dogs when all breeds kill humans? Why should I, a responsible dog owner have to carry extra insurance when the guy down the street let's his dogs run loose and doesn't even keep insurance on his car let alone a dog. Why is it that in a line up, most people can't even pick out the difference between a Boxer, Bulldog, American Pit Bull Terrier, and a Lab but I should have to carry insurance just because someone may label my dogs as Pit?

I've seen so many breeds labeled as Pits with not a drop of Pit Bull blood in them. More so if they are involved in an attack. I've been bit by Labs and Jack Russell Terriers, and while I've been around hundreds of Pits, not one have I felt in danger of my life. I have however had more then my share of french kisses from the breed. Those dogs are great at catching you off guard with random kisses. 

I think you really need to learn more about the breed and less about what the media tells you. Responsible owners aren't ever going to be the issue because they already follow the laws. Irresponsible owners are the ones that you can pass all the laws you want and they will never follow one. That's why generic laws work better.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

sassafras said:


> What is substantively different about it in terms of potential risks? I think the plethora of genetic problems in dogs demonstrates quite well that there's no guarantee only "good" genes are selected for through traditional breeding, so how do you ensure that you don't accidentally link an undesired trait that is a potential threat to human health to a desired trait you are breeding for with artificial selection?



I couldn't tell you. The scientist involved with genetic engineering can't even really say for sure white kind of negative impact it can have of human health. There just hasn't been enough research to come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether or not it is completely safe. I think people get a little bit crazy about it and take it to an extreme that isn't exactly warranted at the moment since there is no proof of anything either way but I don't think that it's wrong for people to be a little concerned about what exactly they're putting into their bodies and how GM products could potentially effect their health. Outside of the food aspect, there's some weird things going on with genetic engineering that can be kind of frightening to some people. So I'm not sure why it bothers you so much if people are a little horrified by it. It can be kind of scary. I mean, there are scientist trying to make human skin to be made up of spider silk rather then keratin so that bullets can't go through it. That's pretty dang horrifying. When animals start glowing in the dark and producing human milk... that's some scary stuff that people aren't going to like. That whole "playing god" thing. I'm not a religious person and I have no problem with humans messing around with stuff like that but I can understand that being a huge thing to some people specifically for that reason and many others. It can get out of control real quick. Just an example, there's a cabbage that has been genetically engineered with a type of scorpion venom that is highly toxic to bugs. It's a natural pesticide which is awesome, but reading about it that it could eventually mutate into something that is toxic to humans... that's not so awesome.

So, personally, I can understand people being a little more reluctant to accept genetic engineering vs something like selective breeding which can't get as crazy as glow in the dark animals and silk web producing goats.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)




----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

And none of them look close to an APBT


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Skipper'D said:


> I have worked many dog bites from a lot of different breed of dogs and none compare to the damage that pitbulls inflict-Out of the 100's of dog bites over 15 years-The only DOA's and deaths resulted from pitbulls and pit bull crosses.
> 
> With everyone of these dog bites when I interviewed the dog owner, they stated that the dog never showed aggression toward anyone or thing-That this was the first time the dog bit-sadly with some breeds that first bite can end in death.


Skipper'D, could you please tell us in what capacity you have 'worked dog bites"? Are you an ER person? 

Like you, I'm anti BSL, but find the constant stream of argument about pit bulls confusing. The difference is that I mostly encounter pitties as yard ornaments that either strain their leashes or hit the fence like the velociraptors in Jurassic Park when I walk my dogs past. This doesn't make a good impression. But, knock on wood, I have no real experience with actual serious dog attacks. I know there's a lot of breed prejudice and BS from the anti pit bull side. But another part of me says, "where there's smoke there's fire."


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Their has always been some breed identification issues,random large black dogs being called Rottweilers,Alaskan Huskies grouped with Siberian Huskies,Bull Mastiffs mixed with Presa Canario,Malamute mixes being claimed as wolf hybrids,pretty much any northern breed being confused with each other and even Pit bull mixes called odd breeds like Dogue de Bordeaux. Also with one of the dogs the one in the corner it had a dog next to it that is cut off in the pic that looked more pit bull like. Not sure on the others but most Pits I see in attacks at least look like Staffies or standard American Bullies. Even the sites I see post that find the Pit bull meme still I see most people choosing the Pit bull or Staffy.
I know their is idiots any,I go on ebay or whatever and see stuff that is clearly a Boxer,Bull mastiff,Pit bull or whatever called a Rottweiler,and a ton of Siberian Huskies being called Malamutes or wolves. But every sense the 90's I've seen people throw all the other breeds in fatal attacks under the bus for Pit bulls that couldn't possibly do any wrong. I never seen people claim the same sort of thing with Rottweilers even when the attacks where much higher,but I have seen plenty of Pit bull advocates even then use it as their advantage to make pit bulls seem like better dogs. It's other breeds that are the aggressive ones not their own! Pit bulls are the godly dog you could chop off a leg and they would still lick your face,remember.

But I think refusing to own up to the potential issues in your breed can actually be harmful and why Pits are toted as nanny dogs and the like.
The pit bull group in dog attacks is the only one that fatally mauls adults almost as much as small children,which could be because of the increased courage caused by gameness. They are also more well known to cause sever injuries leading to amputation,not saying other breeds can't do the same but seeing how their bred to go all out and go all out in the pit or with anything they have their mind to it's not too surprising. I've heard even from Pit bull or game dog people that they can be more serious in their attacks on humans if they do attack. That even the average Pit/staffy mix would have more fight drive than the average Rottweiler or Doberman. I`m willing to admit Rottweilers even though most seem like couch potatoes that wouldn't hurt a fly and never had negative experience with them are more prone to DA and HA and can be potentially more dangerous than many other breeds but many can't seem to do the same with the Bully Breeds. Also although gameness may not directly make a dog human aggression and are different traits. It is known that the dogs used for protection sports commonly pop out DA dogs so DA dogs popping out HA dogs does not seem to unusual either. Sense it is pretty much expecting a dog breed to be able to fight other dogs,boar,cattle and even bears but not a strange man,seems a little unrealistic for a whole breed. Like expecting a Border collie to never try to herd a child or another dog.

I don't want them banned and do love the breed but wish people would admit that perhaps they can have a higher potential for HA than say a Lab,and perhaps could do more damage than the average lab which despite being very popular still has a way lower percent in serious mauling and fatalities than dogs like Pits,Staffs,Rottweilers,Siberian Huskies,GSD's,Great Danes,Bull Mastiffs and even some pretty rare breeds.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> Their has always been some breed identification issues,random large black dogs being called Rottweilers,Alaskan Huskies grouped with Siberian Huskies,Bull Mastiffs mixed with Presa Canario,Malamute mixes being claimed as wolf hybrids,pretty much any northern breed being confused with each other and even Pit bull mixes called odd breeds like Dogue de Bordeaux. Also with one of the dogs the one in the corner it had a dog next to it that is cut off in the pic that looked more pit bull like. Not sure on the others but most Pits I see in attacks at least look like Staffies or standard American Bullies. Even the sites I see post that find the Pit bull meme still I see most people choosing the Pit bull or Staffy.
> I know their is idiots any,I go on ebay or whatever and see stuff that is clearly a Boxer,Bull mastiff,Pit bull or whatever called a Rottweiler,and a ton of Siberian Huskies being called Malamutes or wolves. But every sense the 90's I've seen people throw all the other breeds in fatal attacks under the bus for Pit bulls that couldn't possibly do any wrong. I never seen people claim the same sort of thing with Rottweilers even when the attacks where much higher,but I have seen plenty of Pit bull advocates even then use it as their advantage to make pit bulls seem like better dogs. It's other breeds that are the aggressive ones not their own! Pit bulls are the godly dog you could chop off a leg and they would still lick your face,remember.
> 
> But I think refusing to own up to the potential issues in your breed can actually be harmful and why Pits are toted as nanny dogs and the like.
> The pit bull group in dog attacks is the only one that fatally mauls adults almost as much as small children,which could be because of the increased courage caused by gameness. They are also more well known to cause sever injuries leading to amputation,not saying other breeds can't do the same but seeing how their bred to go all out and go all out in the pit or with anything they have their mind to it's not too surprising. I`m willing to admit Rottweilers even though most seem like couch potatoes that wouldn't hurt a fly and never had negative experience with them are more prone to DA and HA and can be potentially more dangerous than many other breeds but many can't seem to do the same with the Bully Breeds. Also although gameness may not directly make a dog human aggression and are diffirent traits. It is known that the dogs used for protection sports commonly pop out DA dogs so DA dogs popping out HA dogs does not seem to unusual either. Sense it is pretty much expecting a dog breed to be able to fight other dogs,boar,cattle and even bears but not a strange man,seems a little unrealistic for a whole breed. Like expecting a Border collie to never try to herd a child or another dog.


Again, there is NO ACTUAL DATA that supports your claims that APBT are responsible for the most fatal maulings or even bites. 

Yes, Pit bulls can bite. Yes, they can kill. So can any dog. But a well bred APBT should *not* and doing so is grounds for culling. No one has said an APBT won't, only that a well-bred APBT *shouldn't*.

And yes, they are REGULARLY misidentified. People even mistake Corso and Dogue as Pit Bulls. There are over 30 breeds that have similar traits. There are people out there that think their 85+ lb dog is a pit bull. And there are huge mutts out there with false pedigrees registered as such. Many people who claim to OWN this breed couldn't identify a Pit Bull on the street.

You've seen people throw other breeds under the bus for fatal attacks? When? I rarely, if ever, see even non-fatal attacks for other breeds make the paper if it wasn't a Pit Bull. And there have been many instances where it was called a Pit Bull, to sell the story, and it wasn't. Its not wrong of people to point out that a dog isn't a pit bull if it is misidentified as such. Its also not wrong to point out there is a serious double standard regarding the reporting of bites and attacks in the media based on breed.

And if you think ANY of the dogs in that photo might be a pit bull, you're making my case.

And I think its dangerous, ignorant and dishonest to suggest that pit bulls require any more restriction or are any more dangerous than say... A Rottweiler.

Your breed used to get the same treatment, same devil reputation and many of the same myths. 

APBT are good dogs. They have their good and their bad points. But they aren't vicious. They aren't unstable. They aren't any more likely to kill or bite than other breeds. And they don't have some unique attack style that other breeds lack. They are very prone to DA, some breeders are working on that. They are prone to high prey drive, not a bad thing. But the breed is NOT supposed to be prone to HA, and an HA dog is considered Abnormal. Do they occur? Yes. Are they the norm? NO. Is it a breed trait? NO.

Its not unrealistic at all, its selective breeding. And while they are the only breed specifically bred to be non-HA, they aren't the only breed bred to completely lack aggression toward something. LGD are bred to protect flocks and herds, they're intended to guard those herds with their life and live with them. Livestock killers, are culled from breeding. But a normal part of an LGD dog's job is running off, attacking and / or killing any threat to the flock, including people. Now if an LGD can be bred to distinguish between members of their flock and predators, a hunting dog can learn (but is not bred for it) to distinguish between prey animals and non-prey animals, a border collie is bred for high prey drive but bred to put it to use in an unusual way, and a fighting dog can actually be dog friendly outside of a pit... And its commonly known and accepted that HA, DA and PA are all different working drives. How is it somehow unrealistic that a Pit Bull be bred to be able to possess PA and DA but lack HA? And that they can be bred as to how those drives, or lack there of, present itself?

Rottweilers are good dogs too. But lets face it, between a 65 (on the heavy end) male APBT and a 120-130 male pound Rottweiler who would you rather get bit by? I'd go with the Pit any day of the week.

You're throwing an awful lot of claims that should be supported by statistical data. So lets see it.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Foresthund said:


> But I think refusing to own up to the potential issues in your breed can actually be harmful and why Pits are toted as nanny dogs and the like.
> The pit bull group in dog attacks is the only one that fatally mauls adults almost as much as small children,which could be because of the increased courage caused by gameness.


-stops and looks at your signature- Are you freaking kidding me? You own a ROTTWEILER.... Let's pull up the stats that started the whole anti-Pit Bull movement:








Oh what's that in the number two spot? Why isn't that your breed of dog? Wasn't your breed of dog the most feared breed of dog prior to everyone shifting to the "Pit Bull" as was German Shepherds and Doberman Pinchers? You owning a "dangerous" breed, yes you do, you should be the FIRST person to stand up beside everyone effected by media biasness and shouting right with us that it's NOT the breed. 





> They are also more well known to cause sever injuries leading to amputation,not saying other breeds can't do the same but seeing how their bred to go all out and go all out in the pit or with anything they have their mind to it's not too surprising. I`m willing to admit Rottweilers even though most seem like couch potatoes that wouldn't hurt a fly and never had negative experience with them are more prone to DA and HA and can be potentially more dangerous than many other breeds but many can't seem to do the same with the Bully Breeds.


Do you even read the reports that come in on the news? 120lb Pit Bull? Even though the breed maxes out in Amstaffs at 70lbs, and true APBTs are 25-65lbs. Heck half the time when a breed is labeled as a "Pit Bull" then it turns out to be a White Boxer or an American Bulldog, the media NEVER correct it! How in the heck can you say that Pits have an issue when the first "bite" from a REAL APBT with pedigree came just a few years ago. Before that, there was never a purebred bite only unregistered, no pedigree "Pit Bulls"

Your breed is far from "innocent": http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=888473
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/2...ys-he-killed-rottweiler-that-attacked-his-son
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/report-1-year-old-boy-dies-after-rottweiler-attack/nfpbt/

Here's a Beagle: http://www.examiner.com/article/bea...ing-child-family-vows-to-fight-death-sentence

How about a Pomeranian? http://amarillo.com/stories/100900/usn_pet.shtml

Mastiff-Rhodesian Ridgeback mix: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/dog-killed-1-year-old-part-ongoing-debate-nationwide

Cane Corso: http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/08...n-couple-whose-cane-corso-dogs-killed-jogger/

American Bulldogs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...l-by-American-Bulldog-in-horrific-attack.html

Boxers: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...t-husband-killed-dog-attack-article-1.1561350

Labs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html
http://kgarcia1113.hubpages.com/hub/Labrador-Retriever-Mix-Dog-Kills-Baby
http://archive.9news.com/news/article/65161/0/Boy-attacked-by-Labrador-Retriever

Any dog can kill and cause injuries. 



> Also although gameness may not directly make a dog human aggression and are diffirent traits. It is known that the dogs used for protection sports commonly pop out DA dogs so DA dogs popping out HA dogs does not seem to unusual either. Sense it is pretty much expecting a dog breed to be able to fight other dogs,boar,cattle and even bears but not a strange man,seems a little unrealistic for a whole breed. Like expecting a Border collie to never try to herd a child or another dog.


Dog aggression and gameness has NOTHING to do with Human Aggression. Completely different things. Dog aggression is like an increased prey drive where they just see other dogs as prey. Being Game, just means they don't give up. How those two things = human aggression I just can't understand that thought process. What being game means is there's a woodchuck in your yard and your dog digs until they catch it, no matter how many times you drag them away. Being Game means it's 90* out and you are searching for a lost child and you have to stop your dog from the game because she would work herself to death because she doesn't actually ever give up. 

You should be one person who I shouldn't have to explain this stuff to. You have a breed of dog that is considered just as discriminated against as my dogs. I have walked up to lost, injured Rottweilers and taken them back to their owners because I understand that it's not the breed, it's the dog itself that's the issue.

Now that being all said, I don't deny that there are unstable dogs out there. My first dog Carter was all out of wack. Suffered from so many issues and finally I put him down after he bit me. THAT is what a RESPONSIBLE dog owner does. They recognize issues, work on them with behaviorist and trainers, then before anyone is really hurt, they do the right thing and put the dog down. Not encourage bad behavior, let the dogs run free in the neighborhood, starve, beat, and chain up their dogs where people randomly wander up to the dog and a bite happens.

Breed has NOTHING to do with bites and how bad the bite is. Even the CDC agree's with that.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Gumiho, what does PA stand for??Prey aggression???


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Gumiho, what does PA stand for??Prey aggression???


Yes, PA is Prey Aggressive. It essentially falls under prey drive but isn't quite the same thing. A dog can have a lot of prey drive, but be lacking in aggression.
And some dogs can have high prey drive and prey specific / selective aggression (by utilizing other instincts and drives to mold response).


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Darkmoon said:


> -stops and looks at your signature- Are you freaking kidding me? You own a ROTTWEILER.... Let's pull up the stats that started the whole anti-Pit Bull movement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never toted Rotts as innocent,quite the opposite. "I`m willing to admit Rottweilers even though most seem like couch potatoes that wouldn't hurt a fly and never had negative experience with them are more prone to DA and HA and can be potentially more dangerous than many other breeds but many can't seem to do the same with the Bully Breeds. Also although gameness may not directly make a dog human aggression and are different traits. It is known that the dogs used for protection sports commonly pop out DA dogs so DA dogs popping out HA dogs does not seem to unusual either. "
I always tried to be straightforward with aggression in the breed and not promote them to people that just want a family pet. Rottweilers had aggression issues for awhile it's more that no-one talks about them much anymore so I end up talking about Pits instead.

I was saying I`m sick of Pits being treated like attacking is so rare for them compared to other dogs on the list like Rottweilers and it's not like I`m against people owning Pits.

It is sort of true that dogs bite how hard they want to,and you can find sever injuries by many breeds but frankly when you breed for certain traits and hardness it comes out in these kind of ways. I've heard of Pits killing dogs three times their size,even the power breeds but not really with other breeds. Pits and other game terriers do the best at games like spring pole,so perhaps some biting behavior translates from fighting or hunting. The other breeds that often enjoy spring pole although not as much are not surprisingly protection breeds.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> I'm not saying they're exactly the same thing, just different levels of sophistication of a similar process. Humans want a specific trait in a specific organism, and they artificially manipulate who reproduces and how to try to get that trait. But somehow it's better or more natural with selective breeding, when there's really very little natural about that... there aren't packs of wild Jersey cows or border collies roaming the wilderness. We made them that way.
> 
> It's just a pet peeve of mine when people are horrified by genetic engineering (not saying anyone here has that position) but a-ok with selective breeding of animals and plants.


I conceded but I still not see them the same.. Unless you mean in a sense like apples and oranges are both fruits.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> I never toted Rotts as innocent,quite the opposite. "I`m willing to admit Rottweilers even though most seem like couch potatoes that wouldn't hurt a fly and never had negative experience with them are more prone to DA and HA and can be potentially more dangerous than many other breeds but many can't seem to do the same with the Bully Breeds. Also although gameness may not directly make a dog human aggression and are different traits. It is known that the dogs used for protection sports commonly pop out DA dogs so DA dogs popping out HA dogs does not seem to unusual either. "
> I always tried to be straightforward with aggression in the breed and not promote them to people that just want a family pet. Rottweilers had aggression issues for awhile it's more that no-one talks about them much anymore so I end up talking about Pits instead.
> 
> I was saying I`m sick of Pits being treated like attacking is so rare for them compared to other dogs on the list like Rottweilers and it's not like I`m against people owning Pits.
> ...


Breeds used in protection sports that are bred for working HA and popping out DA do so because they are neither breeding for or against DA. Thats what you're missing.
In the APBT, they actively breed AGAINST HA. And many are now also selecting against DA.

DA & HA are two separate things. Evaluating an APBT's propensity for damage and aggression toward people isn't evaluated by its ability toward other dogs or Prey animals that it was actively bred to be efficient with. No more so than you can compare a GSD's ability and aggression when taking on a person, to how efficient its ability would be when taking on large game or another dog.

... Did you just use their ability with spring poles to allude to a propensity for HA simply because a few Protection breeds also do well at it? I'm reading that wrong, right?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Gumiho said:


> Again, there is NO ACTUAL DATA that supports your claims that APBT are responsible for the most fatal maulings or even bites.
> 
> Yes, Pit bulls can bite. Yes, they can kill. So can any dog. But a well bred APBT should *not* and doing so is grounds for culling. No one has said an APBT won't, only that a well-bred APBT *shouldn't*.
> 
> ...


Read what I said I never said any of those dogs where Pits. I said that one of the dogs was with another dog that looked more pit like and it's possible that the others where not alone either. It's pretty much cherrypicking the least Pit like dogs their was. In one news 

A well bred dog of any breed should not kill anyone,but not all dogs are very well bred are they?

I've mainly seen pit bull advocates throw other breeds under the buss,news rarely.

Also a 130lb Rottweiler is really on the heavy end too,their supposed to be 80-120lbs more but like all breeds have been bred larger and larger and not all dogs fit their standard. 

I DON'T THINK PIT BULLS AND BULLY BREEDS ARE VICIOUS OR HORRIBLE,I wouldn't of traveled 100+ miles to a Pit bull festival this weekend and made friends with many if I thought they where vicious! I always wanted to own one,and love being around them.

They are not angels nor devils and mainly sick of the denial that surrounds the breed. And I know that HA is not a desirable trait in them but also DA is not a desirable trait in Protection breeds,but either can pop up pretty easily when breeding for a sort of aggressive behavior. Not all dogs with prey drive will show that behavior with children,the highest prey drive and somewhat DA dog I had was great with children. But it seems that the dogs that have those traits with poor ownership and training can twist it around towards humans. Plus a dog that shows DA or prey drive can possibly get along wither pets it's been raised with,Live stock guardians are raised with the herd sense a puppy and any dog that shows aggression is culled. But lets say a wandering sheep goes on the property or the more aggressive dogs don't get culled? Also fighting dogs that are friendly to most dogs outside of the pit tend to be more of the exeption not the rule and from what I read even the direct relatives of those dogs can be hot with other dogs.

Find the Malamute! I even chose all adult dogs unlike a lot of the guess the pit bull ones. I also made a Rottweiler one before but it seems to have disappeared. You would think Spitz types would be higher on the list with all the breed confusion they have.

Also their is a good amount of data it's just that people won't admit that Pits attack more than most other breeds and anything that says otherwise is toted as anti-pit bull.
I don't see this kind of thing with other breeds,when rottweilers kill 50 or so people it's considered fact and sense all breeds even labs and toy breeds have identification issues I believe it mostly is truth whether I like it or not.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> Also their is a good amount of data it's just that people won't admit that Pits attack more than most other breeds and anything that says otherwise is toted as anti-pit bull.
> I don't see this kind of thing with other breeds,when rottweilers kill 50 or so people it's considered fact and sense all breeds even labs and toy breeds have identification issues I believe it mostly is truth whether I like it or not.


When people start posting peds with dog attacks, is when i will believe every dog in an attack labeled "Pit bull" is a pit bull...And idk what you mean about when a rottie kills a person it is considered fact, i have seen more than one dog labeled rottie in an attack just because it had the tan points, but they deff weren't a Rottie. HECK i saw a lab looking mutt called a pure bred aussie in an attack


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> When people start posting peds with dog attacks, is when i will believe every dog in an attack labeled "Pit bull" is a pit bull...And idk what you mean about when a rottie kills a person it is considered fact, i have seen more than one dog labeled rottie in an attack just because it had the tan points, but they deff weren't a Rottie. HECK i saw a lab looking mutt called a pure bred aussie in an attack


I have to say this. There's only been one attack that I've been able to find that the dogs actually had Pedigrees. They were also owned by an irresponsible owner who allowed their dogs to run free and didn't take care of them at all. Who would think abused dogs that are starving, running loose would be an issue?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Gumiho said:


> Breeds used in protection sports that are bred for working HA and popping out DA do so because they are neither breeding for or against DA. Thats what you're missing.
> In the APBT, they actively breed AGAINST HA. And many are now also selecting against DA.
> 
> DA & HA are two separate things. Evaluating an APBT's propensity for damage and aggression toward people isn't evaluated by its ability toward other dogs or Prey animals that it was actively bred to be efficient with. No more so than you can compare a GSD's ability and aggression when taking on a person, to how efficient its ability would be when taking on large game or another dog.
> ...


They do try to avoid the highly DA dogs, they don't breed out dogs that if pushed would fight back. But that is the same with Pits,highly HA dogs where usually put down but not territorial or protective ones. Not all dogmen culled man biters if other traits they had where desirable. http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.com/2012/01/culling-manbiters-and-desecrating-truth.html
Wallace's King Cotton in fact fought and won against a highly HA winning APBT,the dog was so dangerous even for a dog focused on the fight the audience and judge had to shield themselves from him.

In fact their starting to become popular protection dogs as well. A book I have called k9 body guards places APBT and American Bulldogs as above GSD's and Rottweilers in suitability for their grit and courage.
This site considers them as good as Belgian Malinois http://www4.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/la/distano3.htm They don't have quite the amount of sharpness or stranger suspicion as other protection breeds,but once they get going they really get going.

Also protection breeds like GSD's,Rotts and BullMastiffs and especially live stock guardians are actually pretty common in amateur or street fights,because they have more tenacity towards it than say a lab or Newfoundland. But they don't have the same gameness as a Pit so about as far as they will go. Rottweilers seem to pretty commonly go after live stock as well.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

There are no accurate stats showing that pits are involved in more bites than any other breed.

Recently, a study was published that was the most comprehensive look at dog bite related fatalities ever done (here's a summary). Instead of relying on notoriously inaccurate media reports, the researchers spoke to the people involved in investigating these incidents, including homicide detectives and animal control agencies, and they spent months or even years tracking down accurate info. They found that in 80% of cases, the breed of dog could not be reliably identified. The other 20ish%, or 45 incidents, involved _twenty_ different breeds and two known mixes.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Skipper'D said:


> I tried to read most of this thread and some of this may have been pointed out already....I tried not to get in the thread but the more I read...well...it is typical rants of pit bull owners defending the breed and justify the dogs behavior-along with belittling anyone that doesn't agree with their views.
> 
> IMO-I don't feel this breed or any breed should be banned, however, I do feel that pitbull and pitbull cross owners should have extra insurance-be it home owners or other-Most responsible pitbull owners that have a full understanding of the breed will not have issue with that since they are responsible pitbull owners. Its the pit bull owners that deny the fact that this breed can be dangerous and/or wear blinders. These people are the ones that give all pit bulls and responsible pit bull owners a bad name.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to venture on the dog-bite statistic crap, because it's been proven time and time again that there was never an official study done on it and the ones that exist are extremely biased and unreliable. But you do know that there are lots of other breeds out there that can inflict every bit as much if not more damage then the Pit Bull, right?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

For those that might doubt there is a serious problem in identifying dogs involved in serious dog bites.....

http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.e...udies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> For those that might doubt there is a serious problem in identifying dogs involved in serious dog bites.....
> 
> http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.e...udies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/


Do you believe that these results are accurate?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> For those that might doubt there is a serious problem in identifying dogs involved in serious dog bites.....
> 
> http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.e...udies/current-studies/dog-breeds/dna-results/


DNA tests are even less accurate than attack statistics though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a4CDvK868w

I`m sorry if I seemed rude to anyone,why I said these kind of things is more that I want a change in responsibility with Pits and until I find proof they attack less than other large breeds this is pretty much all I can go on. I do believe it is less than what is said by the media,but I feel that doesn't mean attacks are extremely unusual and that only outlander Pits would be capable of it. When you read the comments of a Pit bull attack(besides the anti-pit ones)it seems no one ever believes it could really be a pit bull. Even if their was no photo or description of the dog they automatically assume it wouldn't be their breed. Or the whole no true scotsmans defense, it starts to get on your nerves.

(now I wait for the moderates to eventually approve my other comment)


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Crantastic said:


> There are no accurate stats showing that pits are involved in more bites than any other breed.
> 
> Recently, a study was published that was the most comprehensive look at dog bite related fatalities ever done (here's a summary). Instead of relying on notoriously inaccurate media reports, the researchers spoke to the people involved in investigating these incidents, including homicide detectives and animal control agencies, and they spent months or even years tracking down accurate info. *They found that in 80% of cases, the breed of dog could not be reliably identified. The other 20ish%, or 45 incidents, involved twenty different breeds and two known mixes.*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

trainingjunkie said:


> Do you believe that these results are accurate?


University of Florida says they are... And they have more credibility.... than anyone that has ventured into this game...


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

trainingjunkie said:


> Do you believe that these results are accurate?


Some of them I get, others I think are crap shoots. 

I think people need to learn their dogs and their dog's ways and manage their dog accordingly. I bet that my Rat Terrier is more prone to biting than your average APBT. But I'm not going to put him in a situation where he is going to feel the need to take a chunk out of someone/some dog. I love how bite stats roll all "pibble types" into one category. That's always nice. It's like saying all pointy eared fluffies are huskies and all dock tailed dogs with double coats are Aussies or anything with spots is a Dalmatian mix.

I acknowledge that some dogs have a screw loose but that hardly has to do with the overall breed and more or less with poor breeding and/or circumstances.

ETA: I also acknowledge that we don't live in a perfect world and that management won't always hold true and that people are dumb/irresponsible. When people stop letting their dogs roam the neighborhood unattended and stop breeding whoever to whoever and when people learn to manage their known reactive/aggressive dogs, then we won't have so many fatal dog attacks anymore- of any breed.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Emphasis mine.


The funny thing is even Micheals Vicks fighting dogs when tested the majority could not be reliably identified,perhaps it's just something we suck at right now.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> Read what I said I never said any of those dogs where Pits. I said that one of the dogs was with another dog that looked more pit like and it's possible that the others where not alone either. It's pretty much cherrypicking the least Pit like dogs their was. In one news


Well, when the point is to display that its not uncommon for dogs to be misidentified... It makes sense that the dogs selected to make the case would be dogs that were misidentified. They didn't say pits never bite, only giving an example of why the data available for dog bite statistics is unreliable, which the CDC stated themselves and why the CDC didn't continue with the report.

That dog doesn't look pit like at all... And what do you mean the others might not be alone?



> A well bred dog of any breed should not kill anyone,but not all dogs are very well bred are they?


Yes, but a poorly bred dog isn't bred to standard and isn't reflective of what a breed is and should be. But think of it this way... A well bred Rottweiler is still going to be more willing to bite than a well bred APBT. Because one was actively bred for working HA, the other was actively bred against HA.




> I've mainly seen pit bull advocates throw other breeds under the buss,news rarely.


And I've seen many who have no idea what they're talking about throw APBT under the bus carelessly. I've not seen anyone throw another breed under the buss other than to say: Other breeds bite and kill too, they just get less press time for it.



> Also a 130lb Rottweiler is really on the heavy end too,their supposed to be 80-120lbs more but like all breeds have been bred larger and larger and not all dogs fit their standard.


I did choose the heavy end of both breeds for a reason, though I seem to be mistaken where Rottweilers top off. So 120. Still would take my chances with the pit. 



> I DON'T THINK PIT BULLS AND BULLY BREEDS ARE VICIOUS OR HORRIBLE,I wouldn't of traveled 100+ miles to a Pit bull festival this weekend and made friends with many if I thought they where vicious! *I always wanted to own one*,and love being around them.


Please don't.



> They are not angels nor devils and mainly sick of the denial that surrounds the breed. And I know that HA is not a desirable trait in them but also DA is not a desirable trait in Protection breeds,but either can pop up pretty easily when breeding for a sort of aggressive behavior.


Yet again. DA pops up in Protection breeds, despite not being desirable, BECAUSE BREEDERS ARE NOT ACTIVELY SELECTING AGAINST IT. 
However, regarding HA in APBT : BREEDERS *ACTIVELY* SELECT AGAINST IT.

The instance of the two are NOT COMPARABLE because one is ACTIVELY BRED AGAINST and the other IS NOT.
Thats the entire point of selective breeding. And if you aren't actively breeding for or against something, it becomes a random variable. In GSD, Rots, ect. Most breeders don't bother breeding for or against DA, so its luck of the draw and its neither more likely or less likely in the breed and isn't abnormal either way and isn't grounds for culling. 

In APBT, Breeders ACTIVELY select *against* HA, so its very uncommon and is abnormal to the breed and grounds for culling.




> Not all dogs with prey drive will show that behavior with children,


Of course not. Because Prey Drive and HA are two separate things...



> the highest prey drive and somewhat DA dog I had was great with children.


Again. Prey Drive, DA and HA are separate things.



> But it seems that the dogs that have those traits with poor ownership and training can twist it around towards humans.


Again. Separate. Things.
Yes, a poorly bred dog is likely to have traits abnormal to their breed. Does not change the fact, that the breed itself is not supposed to have those traits.

And again. SEPARATE. THINGS. HA, DA and Prey Drive are NOT THE SAME THINGS. You could have a balls to the wall HA dog that is dog friendly and hasn't a lick of usable prey drive. You could have an insanely DA dog that has no prey drive or HA. You could have an exceptionally dog friendly, never meets a stranger dog that would happily shred any small non-dog animal it meets. They are all DIFFERENT things.



> Plus a dog that shows DA or prey drive can possibly get along wither pets it's been raised with,Live stock guardians are raised with the herd sense a puppy and any dog that shows aggression is culled. But lets say a wandering sheep goes on the property or the more aggressive dogs don't get culled?


No, LGD that show aggression toward their flock, livestock killers, are culled. Aggression is very much used by LGD. They're expected to attack and kill other animals and even engage people. Its not just a matter of being raised with the flock, otherwise they wouldn't easily adapt to the introduction of new animals to the flock. They'll protect the flock from other animals, like other pet dogs, they were raised with too. 




> Also fighting dogs that are friendly to most dogs outside of the pit tend to be more of the exeption not the rule and from what I read even the direct relatives of those dogs can be hot with other dogs.


Not necessarily. Its the exception to the rule only because the breed as a whole (regardless of the dog's involvement or history with fighting) is prone to DA. But DA isn't what determines a fighting dog. A game dog will fight whether its DA or not, if the handler makes it clear thats what they want from it.



> Find the Malamute! I even chose all adult dogs unlike a lot of the guess the pit bull ones. I also made a Rottweiler one before but it seems to have disappeared. You would think Spitz types would be higher on the list with all the breed confusion they have.


Fourth dog, second row.
You realize that putting additional emphasis on how easy it is for people to misidentify a dog proves the point about flawed data right? And I bet you, that if Spitz breeds and their mixes were as common and had the population and reputation of "pit bulls", they would get a lot more attention. Your breed used to be in the same boat. 




> Also their is a good amount of data it's just that people won't admit that Pits attack more than most other breeds and anything that says otherwise is toted as anti-pit bull.
> I don't see this kind of thing with other breeds,when rottweilers kill 50 or so people it's considered fact and sense all breeds even labs and toy breeds have identification issues I believe it mostly is truth whether I like it or not.


Good amount of *unreliable* data. People just don't want to admit they can't wrap their head around that.

All breeds face the same risk of misidentification. That is why dog bite statistics by breed, for any breed, is USELESS.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Foresthund said:


> The funny thing is even Micheals Vicks fighting dogs when tested the majority could not be reliably identified,perhaps it's just something we suck at right now.


Actually, there's a good chance they weren't purebreds. Quite often you get an APBT that's a good fighter and a Mix that's a good fighter and you bred those dogs together hoping for a hot dog. Also funny that most of those dogs went on to be therapy dogs, beloved family pets, and those dogs weren't even good fighting dogs.


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> University of Florida says they are... And they have more credibility.... than anyone that has ventured into this game...



Some tests, for certain breeds, have improved drastically.

But it depends greatly on the breed, how common it is and the quality control of the sample pool used for the breed's baseline.

For example, I'd be reliably confident on a DNA profile for a purebred Lab or a common breed mix.

For pit bulls, many only use an AKC testing foundation. So testing an APBT against a sample baseline made up strictly of AST and ST would be iffy and likely come back as a mix with those two breeds or similar.

I would have no faith what so ever in the results for rare breeds like Jindo, Hokkaido, Shikoku, ect being consistently accurate (if at all). Especially since the vast majority of the US population sampled is of questionable breeding or origin and are likely mixes. And the population available to sample is extremely small to begin with.

(That said, some of the guessed breeds in that link have me rolling. lol)


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Darkmoon said:


> Actually, there's a good chance they weren't purebreds. Quite often you get an APBT that's a good fighter and a Mix that's a good fighter and you bred those dogs together hoping for a hot dog. Also funny that most of those dogs went on to be therapy dogs, beloved family pets, and those dogs weren't even good fighting dogs.


Do they still dog that? I mean like a couple decades ago it seemed to be more common to mix SBT's with APBT,but at this time I would think that for any real dog fighting they wouldn't want to risk losing the trait of gameness even a tiny bit. Plus I believe it said some of the dogs had no APBT in them. Although it also may be possible sense he took care of others dog at his yard and had some unusual breeds like Beagles,Rottweilers and Presa Canaroio that maybe not all his dogs where legit fighters to begin with.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> It is talked about in all sorts of breeds.
> 
> ACDs, I hear it called gameness a lot.
> 
> ...


ACDs have grit... Or are Gritty....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> What is it called when a dog wants to jump off a cliff to get her toy (bounced wrong, bad throw, whatever) and has to be dragged back to the car because she WILL go back and jump off that cliff to get that toy if allowed to? I always thought that was drive but I'm not really sure. Most Labs I know/have known are like that.


It is called, who is foolish enough to play fetch with their dog by a cliff......




> And, last I'll say about "gameness": that's absolutely not how the majority of "pit bull people" on forums or blogs or in real life describe "gameness". Too bad there can't be a consensus on that one.


You have some study, poll, statistics to qualify your remarks? I would LOVE to see the Study of terms and definitions of People involved with pit bulls.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> I never toted Rotts as innocent,quite the opposite. "I`m willing to admit Rottweilers even though most seem like couch potatoes that wouldn't hurt a fly and never had negative experience with them are more prone to DA and HA and can be potentially more dangerous than many other breeds but many can't seem to do the same with the Bully Breeds. Also although gameness may not directly make a dog human aggression and are different traits. It is known that the dogs used for protection sports commonly pop out DA dogs so DA dogs popping out HA dogs does not seem to unusual either. "
> I always tried to be straightforward with aggression in the breed and not promote them to people that just want a family pet. Rottweilers had aggression issues for awhile it's more that no-one talks about them much anymore so I end up talking about Pits instead.
> 
> I was saying I`m sick of Pits being treated like attacking is so rare for them compared to other dogs on the list like Rottweilers and it's not like I`m against people owning Pits.
> ...


really? Your going to demonize pit bulls when you own a rottweiler? Also, you know the rottweiler has one of, if not the strongest bit force of all the domestic dog breeds, right? 

Pit Bulls don't have a very strong bite force, it's the holding and shaking motion that terriers do that makes their bites so damaging, It's their REFUSAL to let go.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

yep... said it in the last thread about this, ut albert payson terhune said that he'd rather get attacked by a pit bull than a collie because a collie is everywhere at once and a pit bull grabs and hangs on. well he said terrier, but it goes for pits since they are a terrier.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Yep a herding dog will nip and back off etc ... some working dogs to a terrier style bite and hold. But you often have to pry a terrier off prey, where a working dog will often "out".


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> really? Your going to demonize pit bulls when you own a rottweiler? Also, you know the rottweiler has one of, if not the strongest bit force of all the domestic dog breeds, right?
> 
> Pit Bulls don't have a very strong bite force, it's the holding and shaking motion that terriers do that makes their bites so damaging, It's their REFUSAL to let go.


*sigh* That comment was trying to point out I wasn't trying to demonizing pits and have been a bit harsh against my own breed as well.

Even if I owned one I would still believe that they top or nearly top the account on attacks and I think why everyone thinks I`m demonizing them is because I have to try to explain it in harsh words why their not innocent little fluffy pibbles that can't do any harm. 

Rottweilers had much of the same issues as Pits in the 90's,attacking frequently,breed poorly frequently,euthanized at shelters frequently but fortunately for them the wrong type of owners and obsession mostly moved away from the breed which it hasn't with Pit bulls. Even as a kid I felt their was a problem with Rotties,both breeds should of never been as popular as they where/are. It always has been more of a human problem and I`m more annoyed at the denial of potential traits in certain breeds,Rottweilers and GSD's are not teddy bear dogs either. Also I may not have as bad of view of HA as some people,even the dogs with it to a degree I do not think are bad dogs. So saying a dog has potential for HA does not mean I`m trying to demonize or that I dislike the breed.

With the powerful bite thing I would have to say I also heard of more sever and damaging attacks by the breed in the past,but sense then their popularity went down and have been bred down to have a milder temperament. Hard to find even a decent protection or guard dog of the breed anymore. So issues with the breed are not as relevant anymore,that's why theirs no weekly Rottweiler topic on these forums.

This is mostly my view more on Pit bulls,by someone that word things better than me and yes he does actually like the breed and has promoted them at times. http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/10/pit-bull-rights-verus-pit-bull.html


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> *sigh* I wasn't trying to demonize pits,even if I owned one I would still believe that they top or nearly top the account on attacks and I think why everyone thinks I`m demonizing them is because I have to try to explain it in harsh words why their not innocent little fluffy pibbles that can't do any harm. Rottweilers had much of the same issues as Pits in the 90's,attacking frequently,breed poorly frequently,euthanized at shelters frequently but fortunately for them the wrong type of owners and obsession mostly moved away from the breed which it hasn't with Pit bulls. Both breeds should of never been as popular as they where/are. It always has been more of a human problem and I`m more annoyed at the denial of potential traits in certain breeds,Rottweilers and GSD's are not teddy bear dogs either.


I think it's frustrating people because you're basing your opinion that they are responsible for more attacks on humans on media reports that have been proven to be false and inaccurate.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> I think it's frustrating people because you're basing your opinion that they are responsible for more attacks on humans on media reports that have been proven to be false and inaccurate.


It was proven that it is hard to completely identify breeds but that doesn't mean they are completely false. How many black medium or large dogs can be claimed as Labs,yet their is rarely media of them attacking children or pets. Dogs have been bred for specific traits,pit bulls are not the same as labs,a Belgian Malinois are different than a Border collie despite both being high energy herding breeds and these traits despite being a rather ugly and sad truth traits can pop out in unexpected ways. Especially with all the crap owners that do not know how to contain their dogs and bring their pits or other potentially DA or prey driven dogs to dog parks and leave them alone with babies to prove how sweet they are. Perhaps if they where treated more like a serious dog like a Belgian Malinois,Presa Canario,Bullmastiff or even a 12lb Jack Russell it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Perhaps that's why it's okay to say a 12lb Jack Russell has some potential for HA despite not being bred for it but not a dog like a Pit bull,and your demonizing pits if you do say such.

It's not even just media,I've seen pits protect their homes about as much as other breeds. I've heard of stories of pits protecting and fighting off bad guys about as much as other breeds. I even heard stories from actual pit bull people and breeders,one of their small female APBT killing a drunk intruder. Now it's known with protection breeds and is often warned that they may not know the difference between a 9 year old wandering on the property and a actual threat,it may not always be the case but it is something you have to watch out for. Now not all pits are reliable with protecting homes,heck not even all GSD's or Rotts are but it isn't that unheard of nor has it been breed away from.

APBT range a good amount in appearance so without bloodlines,a dog like him would be easily called a American Bulldog by Pit bull people. But sense this dog was a known fighting dog and used in the bloodlines or modern APBT than he is a APBT. The trouble is that it's kind of hard to prove without any paperwork. So is it better to assume dogs that look like him are Pit bulls or are game bred type of dogs or just assume their some other breed entirely? Sense a Pit is no different than a Lab or any other breed?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> I think it's frustrating people because you're basing your opinion that they are responsible for more attacks on humans on media reports that have been proven to be false and inaccurate.


Yes, that's why it was frustrating.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

If the breed of dog couldn't be identified in 80% of cases, why are you assuming they were pit bulls?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> If the breed of dog couldn't be identified in 80% of cases, why are you assuming they were pit bulls?


Because when researching dog attacks they at least looked related,and that study focused only on dogs in attack not all dogs altogether and their is a correlation with the type of dogs seen in attacks. I feel it's safer to fight BSL by figuring out how to lessen attacks and increase responsible ownership than sit around and claim Bully breeds do not have certain traits and behaviors. The amount of fatalities by dogs are going up not down,so I feel maybe something needs to be changed and if not it will be forced on us and pretty much already is. Because we as a society are not taking responsibility on the dogs we own and breed.

Because even if 80% of dogs where a completely different breed which I doubt it is still a problem that denying won't fix. You can't fix a problem if you don't believe it exists,and BSl still is popping up and I`m seeing less and less people believing its all about the owner and that Pits are angels on paws.

I don't like this kind of talk either and frankly depresses me and makes me want to hit myself for even saying these things,but I feel its something that needs to be done but so hard when either people are overly defensive of Pit bulls or downright fear or hate them. But people never seen to want to talk about their own breed without turning it on others,no matter how many times I brought up dogs like Rottweilers.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> If the breed of dog couldn't be identified in 80% of cases, why are you assuming they were pit bulls?


Cuz Thats what the media sez it was, so it must be true!


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> *Because when researching dog attacks they at least looked related*,and that study focused only on dogs in attack not all dogs altogether and their is a correlation with the type of dogs seen in attacks. I feel it's safer to fight BSL by figuring out how to lessen attacks and increase responsible ownership than sit around and claim Bully breeds do not have certain traits and behaviors. The amount of fatalities by dogs are going up not down,so I feel maybe something needs to be changed and if not it will be forced on us and pretty much already is. Because we as a society are not taking responsibility on the dogs we own and breed.
> 
> Because even if 80% of dogs where a completely different breed which I doubt it is still a problem that denying won't fix. You can't fix a problem if you don't believe it exists,and BSl still is popping up and I`m seeing less and less people believing its all about the owner and that Pits are angels on paws.
> 
> I don't like this kind of talk either and frankly depresses me and makes me want to hit myself for even saying these things,but I feel its something that needs to be done but so hard when either people are overly defensive of Pit bulls or downright fear or hate them. But people never seen to want to talk about their own breed without turning it on others,no matter how many times I brought up dogs like Rottweilers.


Could you clarify what you mean by that?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Could you clarify what you mean by that?


That their Bully breeds like Staffies,APBT,or American Bully mixes. Dogs with similar backgrounds,purpose or once the same breed and fit into at least a certain type of dog. Because their is more variety it would increase numbers of attacks but I don't think it discredits them completely. I've always kind of accepted these things as part of the breeds I loved,so I just find it kind of odd that other people don't. So I should figure out if I should just not talk about these things and let life play its course or not,it's very tempting to dot he former now.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> That their Bully breeds like Staffies,APBT,or American Bully mixes. Dogs with similar backgrounds,purpose or once the same breed and fit into at least a certain type of dog. Because their is more variety it would increase numbers of attacks but I don't think it discredits them completely. I've always kind of accepted these things as part of the breeds I loved,so I just find it kind of odd that other people don't. So I should figure out if I should just not talk about these things and let life play its course or not,it's very tempting to dot he former now.


So your assertion is that 80% of dog attacks are from bully breeds. What data do you have to back that up, considering in one news report a sheltie was reported as a pit bull?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> So your assertion is that 80% of dog attacks are from bully breeds. What data do you have to back that up, considering in one news report a sheltie was reported as a pit bull?


No,not 80% attacks are from pits or bully breeds,people where telling me that 80% of breed identification could not be proved. About 60-70% fatal attacks are reported as pit bulls,and I was saying if even if 80% of those dogs where not Pits,Staffies or pit mixes than it still is decent chunks of attacks.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> No,not 80% attacks are from pits or bully breeds,people where telling me that 80% of breed identification could not be proved. About 60-70% fatal attacks are reported as pit bulls,and I was saying if even if 80% of those dogs where not Pits,Staffies or pit mixes than it still is decent chunks of attacks.


So you're just pulling a number out of the air? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. What if 90% weren't bully breeds? What if 100% weren't bully breeds? What if 80% were lab mixes? What if 10% were poodles?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

> That their Bully breeds like Staffies,APBT,or American Bully mixes. Dogs with similar backgrounds,purpose or once the same breed and fit into at least a certain type of dog. Because their is more variety it would increase numbers of attacks but I don't think it discredits them completely.


That's not true, though. In many cases, a dog that attacks will be identified as a lab (or whatever) in the first news report and a pit in the second, and the second is the one that makes national news. Often the attacking dogs look nothing like a pit -- this isn't a case of staffies or American bullies being mistaken for pits (someone here -- I forget who -- once posted shelter photos of dogs that had been identified as pits after attacks but looked nothing like them).

In addition, bites from goldens or cocker spaniels or whatever rarely make national news (they'll be mentioned in a local paper if at all), while pit bull "attacks" make headlines and get included in bite statistics. There's a reason why the CDC doesn't keep bite stats by breed anymore, and that's because they were based partly off media reports, which are useless. (Trust me, I know this for a fact -- in journalism school I was taught that journalists aren't even allowed to use newspapers as sources for fact-checking purposes, because newspapers are written quickly and without fact-checking and are often wrong, and corrections won't appear until the next day or later.)

People are also more likely to report bites if they consider the dog that bit them to be a "dangerous breed." It's a cycle -- people think pits are dangerous, so they report a non-fatal bite from a pit or pit-looking dog when they wouldn't report it if the dog were a collie or something, and then it makes the news and people think pits are dangerous and...

Also, pit bulls and pit mixes outnumber a lot -- a LOT -- of other breeds. If you had 1000 pit bulls and 10 Belgian Malinois in a town, and 10 pits bit people and 1 mal bit people, which breed would you consider more dangerous? Most people would immediately say the pit based on the number of bites, but only 1% of pit bulls bit, while 10% of mals did. Now imagine that on a country-wide scale.

And I'm not arguing with you because I think pits are the best dogs ever and that they never do anything wrong. Pits aren't my type of dog and I'll never own one, and I'm wary of them when I'm out with my little dogs because I know they can have a tendency to be DA. I just dislike misinformation and I dislike it when people refuse to think critically.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

And yeah, 80% of dogs couldn't be identified. Why do you assume that all of the dogs in that 80% were short-haired, pit-looking dogs? Why couldn't a good chunk of them be big hairy muttly mutts?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

So what is your evidence that pit bulls are responsible for most attacks again? 


Also, if I have to type out the whole thing about numbers of bites without population data being fairly useless again, I'm going to scream. 

Also, I see a scream in my future.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> And yeah, 80% of dogs couldn't be identified. Why do you assume that all of the dogs in that 80% were short-haired, pit-looking dogs? Why couldn't a good chunk of them be big hairy muttly mutts?


Love me some mutt mutt.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> That's not true, though. In many cases, a dog that attacks will be identified as a lab (or whatever) in the first news report and a pit in the second, and the second is the one that makes national news. Often the attacking dogs look nothing like a pit -- this isn't a case of staffies or American bullies being mistaken for pits (someone here -- I forget who -- once posted shelter photos of dogs that had been identified as pits after attacks but looked nothing like them).
> 
> In addition, bites from goldens or cocker spaniels or whatever rarely make national news (they'll be mentioned in a local paper if at all), while pit bull "attacks" make headlines and get included in bite statistics. There's a reason why the CDC doesn't keep bite stats by breed anymore, and that's because they were based partly off media reports, which are useless. (Trust me, I know this for a fact -- in journalism school I was taught that journalists aren't even allowed to use newspapers as sources for fact-checking purposes, because newspapers are written quickly and without fact-checking and are often wrong, and corrections won't appear until the next day or later.)
> 
> ...


I was talking about severe mauling or fatalities not bites,bites by small dogs are never reported remotely as much as larger dogs and more scary breeds like Pits,Rotts,GSD's and Dobes would likely get reported more. I already said Pits are too popular for a more serious type of dog and even by percent that attacks are high in comparison to other popular breeds.
News varies especially when the first report comes out but usually they get the breed right eventually and the statistics usually show that more.

Okay the 80% where not pits but all the breeds in the statistics but even if you cut that amount out it would still be about the same don't you think.

Also what evidence do you have the pits are not attacking even a tiny bit above other dog breeds.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm sure that if my past dog had attacked someone, he'd be in that 80% of not easily identifiable ones, and there was not a lick of pit in him:


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> News varies especially when the first report comes out but usually they get the breed right eventually and the statistics usually show that more.


Based on my knowledge of the industry, I don't believe that. That also goes against what that first study I posted said. So... prove it.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> I was talking about severe mauling or fatalities not bites,bites by small dogs are never reported remotely as much as larger dogs and more scary breeds like Pits,Rotts,GSD's and Dobes would likely get reported more. I already said Pits are too popular for a more serious type of dog *and even by percent that attacks are high in comparison to other popular breeds.
> News varies especially when the first report comes out but usually they get the breed right eventually and the statistics usually show that more*.


Please show me the data that supports these assertions.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> News varies especially when the first report comes out but usually they get the breed right eventually and the statistics usually show that more.


What are you basing this on?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

> I already said Pits are too popular for a more serious type of dog and even by percent that attacks are high in comparison to other popular breeds.


This, too. How many pits/pit mixes are in the US, and how many of those have been involved in fatal attacks? I want to see some numbers.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Also I'd like to add that lots of combinations of breeds create dogs that look vaguely pit-like without any pit present. Certainly pit-like enough for a media outlet to report them as one, even though they weren't.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Regardless though, pit bull isn't a breed anymore.. it's just a term that encompasses a ton of different dogs that all fit a specific "type". There may not be a purebred APBT or purebred anything involved but if it's a mutt and it looks like this:










Those are pit bulls as society knows them to be. They attacked a boy and killed him. I'm sorry but pit bulls do attack and kill children and people. Maybe not purebred ones, but as far as the world is concerned those dogs are what is considered to be a "pit bull". End of story.

ETA: This one too










I hate to go on dogsbite for pics but it's easier then searching through news stories. 

Anyways, point being, pit bulls do attack and kill people because those are what people associate the term "pit bull" with. That's the bigger issue. The term pit bull doesn't just represent a breed of dog anymore.. it represents every single bully looking like type of dog there is out there.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Ok, but still... what is the evidence that pit bull types actually attack and kill more people than other breeds and that they attack and kill more people as a function of their population in relation to other breeds?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I also love how people think that DA=HA and it's just not true, there are dogs that can be both, but one doesn't equal the other.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I do find it interesting that insurance companies have a strong tendency to deny coverage to owners of pit bull breeds, which top the list of 11 "riskiest" breeds. I also personally know an insurance agent who has a phobia of pit bulls precisely because of the "pit bull" dog bite injury claims he constantly sees.

Typically insurance companies will only do what gets them the most money. They charge insane amounts of money for driver's insurance for 18 year old men and 85 year old women while the 30 year old soccer mom skates by with one of the lowest rates possible. It would not be a stretch for them to ban pit bulls altogether because they get too many big-ticket "pit bull" injury claims. There's no hard data, but it isn't too far of a stretch of the imagination to see why the breed is a problem.

Whether or not bull-and-terrier type dogs are actually biting people, there are many dangerous dogs running around that the general public are IDing as "pit bulls." And that is a problem those in the breed need to acknowledge.

EDIT: Here's my quick tidbit or research http://www.forbes.com/sites/cateyhill/2012/05/30/11-riskiest-dog-breeds-for-homeowners-and-renters/


----------



## Skipper'D (Aug 18, 2014)

Not surprised and I expected this type of response-makes it easy to tell who is the responsible pit bull owners and who are not.

Funny how the one that are NOT responsible move the blame to either-other breeds, poor breeding, poor training and worse...the person that died from the dog bite and/or the family-Shift the blame to anything other than the dog itself.....pretty common to see with breed supporters.

And, yes, I work in the medical field and I base my OPINION on the FACTs I personally had to deal with in my ER-not the news reports, articles..etc.....My personal experience and while some of you don't agree and are basically calling me a liar or that I don't know what I am talking about...Well, so be it....I am pretty sure I know what I seen and had to deal with..one-on-one....not something I made up......but I am not surprised at all since defenders of the pit bulls do tend shift blame or critical of others to take the light off the truth.

As I stated in my first post if you bothered to read it-I did state "most not all" a couple of times-I am very well aware that other dogs do bite and can kill, however, the degree of damage inflicted by the pit bull is usually worse than if you got bit by a cocker spanial for example

The human owner is the one that should be held responsible just as much as a vicious dog of any breed-not just the pit bull and why I feel you should carry extra insurance to cover the dog-Responsible dog owners don't have problems with this-so when a person feels they shouldn't have to insure other against their dog...well that speaks for itself and most likely one of the people that cause the responsible dog owners a bad name.

Bad dog owners that allow their dog to breed, fight, roam and market them as tough animals-usually don't have anything to lose anyway-they rent so they don't have to fear losing their house or even buying insurance for that matter-but the landlord does-they can lose the house because of bad dog owners with know vicious dogs-who is going to pay the damage, who is responsible-do you have any idea what it cost...I do....from personal experience.....

keep supporting these not so responsible dog owners and one day we will find that none of us will be allowed to own a dog bigger than a bread box.....


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Skipper'D said:


> Not surprised and I expected this type of response-makes it easy to tell who is the responsible pit bull owners and who are not.


What kind of response? The desire for facts to substantiate claims? Yea, that's super irresponsible. :/


ETA: I work with dogs all day, every day and people might be surprised at the breeds I'd put on a BSL list if I were so inclined to believe that BSL actually accomplished anything. Hands down cocker spaniels, chihuahuas, dachshunds and corgis are the most likely to need to be muzzled to prevent bites IME. What does that mean? Nothing, the same as "I see lots of people bitten by pit bulls in my ER job."


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

sassafras said:


> ETA: I work with dogs all day, every day and people might be surprised at the breeds I'd put on a BSL list if I were so inclined to believe that BSL actually accomplished anything. Hands down cocker spaniels, chihuahuas, dachshunds and corgis are the most likely to need to be muzzled to prevent bites IME. What does that mean? Nothing, the same as "I see lots of people bitten by pit bulls in my ER job."


I work in a boarding/daycare facility. We do not allow certain breeds due to DA (Akitas, bully types, etc etc). Now, most of the dogs we interview and pass are perfectly well and fine being handled. Think soft, easy going dogs like Doodles, Labs, Goldens, and a lot of the mixes. Other dogs, I am very careful about approaching. Are they bad dogs? No. They just wouldn't like to be surprised. Herders (BCs, ACDs, Aussies, Corgis of both kinds), Malamutes, Huskies, Shepherds, little Terriers, Chihuahuas are all SHARP dogs (in general). Sharp dogs will turn to bite faster than a easy going dog.

I am more than willing to tell people who have to handle Merlin (my own Rat Terrier) that he is a terrier and will bite if he thinks he has to. So, when we go to the vet, I tell them to be careful and if they feel the need to, they may muzzle him, no questions asked.

I do not think Pit Bulls (pure or the media mix) are more vicious or inflict more damage than another dog of similar height, weight, and personality. I've been chomped by three dogs. My own (for interfering in a fight), a Lab (for interfering in a fight), and another small terrier (because I HAD to move her and she wasn't having it).

What one sees at their job is only personal experience, and not at all a reflection of dogs or a breed as a whole. Even my experience that I have detailed carries very little weight compared to comprehensive studies that suggest that APBTs are no more dangerous than your purebred lab.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Bleh i HATE terrierman, didn't even read it, as soon as i saw it was from him lol


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I do not think Pit Bulls (pure or the media mix) are more vicious or inflict more damage than another dog of similar height, weight, and personality. I've been chomped by three dogs. My own (for interfering in a fight), a Lab (for interfering in a fight), and another small terrier (because I HAD to move her and she wasn't having it).
> .


Can you find me a Border Collie or Pointer that can do damage like this. http://wgno.com/2013/05/30/woman-who-lost-eye-ear-and-arms-recounts-pit-bull-attack/
I don't really want to link the more gruesome ones.

Even in a Pit bull book I stupidly can't find right now called " The Bully Breeds" said "although less likely to attack than any other dog would do 1000 or so as much the damage." Although That doesn't seem to be all true,just that even plenty of Pit bull people I know consider them serious dogs when pushed. A 90lb Rottweiler is a more serious dog generally than a 90lb Lab. A 60lb Belgian malinois is generally more serious than a 60lb Aussie. A 12lb Jack Russell Terrier is a more serious dog than a 12lb Italian Greyhound. And all will likely do more damage averagely than the later just out of their determination to do such.There's a reason APBT and random bully breeds are considered the best fighting dogs and excellent at large game hunting and baiting,why larger more powerful dogs do not last in the pit against them. It seems rather egotistical to think we could handle ourselves better and where somehow out of reach because dogs are naturally submissive to us right? I just want these dogs to taken a little more serious and for people to realize that not all dog breeds are the same and not everyone can handle every dog.

The population of Pits coordinates http://www.border-wars.com/2013/03/pit-bull-popularity-by-state.html pretty easily with the number of attacks. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=204325558281052090423.0004d28f8b2c46cf9d3ca&dg=feature http://blog.dogsbite.org/2013/05/8-year-us-dog-bite-fatality-state-map-2005-2012.html I know no one likes the later


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I work in a boarding/daycare facility. We do not allow certain breeds due to DA (Akitas, bully types, etc etc). Now, most of the dogs we interview and pass are perfectly well and fine being handled. Think soft, easy going dogs like Doodles, Labs, Goldens, and a lot of the mixes. Other dogs, I am very careful about approaching. Are they bad dogs? No. They just wouldn't like to be surprised. Herders (BCs, ACDs, Aussies, Corgis of both kinds), Malamutes, Huskies, Shepherds, little Terriers, Chihuahuas are all SHARP dogs (in general). Sharp dogs will turn to bite faster than a easy going dog.
> 
> I am more than willing to tell people who have to handle Merlin (my own Rat Terrier) that he is a terrier and will bite if he thinks he has to. So, when we go to the vet, I tell them to be careful and if they feel the need to, they may muzzle him, no questions asked.
> 
> ...


This (too short)


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Skipper'D said:


> Not surprised and I expected this type of response-makes it easy to tell who is the responsible pit bull owners and who are not.
> 
> ...
> 
> And, yes, I work in the medical field and I base my OPINION on the FACTs I personally had to deal with in my ER-not the news reports, articles..etc.....My personal experience


1. I don't own a pit bull and it's unlikely that I ever will.

2. So you saw the dogs that inflicted the damage you dealt with in the ER?

3. Asking for facts is responsible, not irresponsible.



Foresthund said:


> Are you guys the same kind of people that hear of a news story of a woman or child raped assume it was some sort of set up or media lie until and if they get enough proof? Because I`m finding that to pretty common as well.
> You guys seriously wont listen or read what I say so I think I`m gonna give up. Hug your precious pibbles for me!


When you resort to personal attacks, you know you've lost the debate.

If you can't provide proof, just say so. There's no need to insult us.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Foresthund said:


> Are you guys the same kind of people that hear of a news story of a woman or child raped assume it was some sort of set up or media lie until and if they get enough proof? Because I`m finding that to pretty common as well.
> You guys seriously wont listen or read what I say so I think I`m gonna give up. Hug your precious pibbles for me!


OR you can stop and realize that ALL of these people are saying the opposite of everything you are saying and open your mind to think "Well, Maybe they are on to something". 

I figured out a long time ago that the media feeds us what we want to see and rarely is it the truth. Yes I am the type of person who stops and says "You know until I see all the facts I'm going to reserve judgement" on most anything anymore because people lie. 

My boyfriend is an EMT/Firefighter, and he's been on many dog bite calls and has always been weary of larger breeds of dogs yet is a complete dog lover. It wasn't until he met my dogs that it started to click in his mind that "while yes, I should be careful around large dogs. It's not the breed but the dog itself". If that's the one thing people ever walk away from me with is the the concept to not judge a dog by it's breed, but to judge the dog individually.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Foresthund said:


> Can you find me a Border Collie or Pointer that can do damage like this. http://wgno.com/2013/05/30/woman-who-lost-eye-ear-and-arms-recounts-pit-bull-attack/
> I don't really want to link the more gruesome ones.
> 
> Even in a Pit bull book I stupidly can't find right now called " The Bully Breeds" said "although less likely to attack than any other dog would do 1000 or so as much the damage." Although That doesn't seem to be all true,just that even plenty of Pit bull people I know consider them serious dogs when pushed. A 90lb Rottweiler is a more serious dog generally than a 90lb Lab. A 60lb Belgian malinois is generally more serious than a 60lb Aussie. A 12lb Jack Russell Terrier is a more serious dog than a 12lb Italian Greyhound. And all will likely do more damage averagely than the later just out of their determination to do such.There's a reason APBT and random bully breeds are considered the best fighting dogs and excellent at large game hunting and baiting,why larger more powerful dogs do not last in the pit against them. It seems rather egotistical to think we could handle ourselves better and where somehow out of reach because dogs are naturally submissive to us right? I just want these dogs to taken a little more serious and for people to realize that not all dog breeds are the same and not everyone can handle every dog.
> ...


Actually a 4year old was killed here a couple of years ago by 3 border collies. It was reported by several news stations, only 1 station reported the dogs as border collies, the others reported them as pit bulls (the dogs were caught by AC and euthanized). The daughter of a poster on another board I belong to was recently bitten by a BC, she required quite a few stitches from just one bite. Luckily the owner of the dog was right on top of it and able to pull it away or it probably would have been worse. The girl was standing in her own yard minding her own business and playing with her dog (they think it was misdirected prey drive, the other dog was a chi). My brother's best friend when we were kids was mauled by an ACD. Little dog that barely weighed 25lbs. I remember when it happened, he spent a month in the hospital and had to return twice for reconstructive surgery. There is no doubt the dog was an ACD. He still has scarring on his face. He wasn't young either, old enough to be walking home from school alone (around 10 I believe). Herders tend to be "more dog" than the softer breeds so I'm not sure what you are getting at. You take a sport or working line Aussie, ACD or BC and push it and no, I don't like the chances of not getting bit.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> why larger more powerful dogs do not last in the pit against them


Just saying i have seen videos of PLENTY of powerful breeds winning fights against bull breeds Rotties, GSDs, Kangals, Ovacharkas have all beat/killed plenty of bull breeds in fights


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Only dog I've ever been legitimately attacked by was an ACD. That dog was something else. I've been nipped/bitten by a few anklebiters, but eh. Fearful little twerps with tiny teeth. 

I'm not dismissing the ER anecdotes out of hand, but anecdotal evidence isn't safe to generalize from. Based on where I live I could say "Most white men wear full beards" but I very much doubt that's true about the country or the world.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Even if one person saw a lot of attacks in their ER and their anecdotal evidence was true across the board (which is not the case), how would they know that the attacks were done by pit bulls? The dogs don't accompany people to the hospital. The same breed identification issue arises here as it does with media reports. 

And in addition to that, no one has been able to prove that a higher percentage of pits attack (based on population) than do other breeds. Show me that a higher _percentage_ of pits/pit mixes attack than boxers or labs or German shepherds (or mixes including any of those). That's all I ask.

(And no, a page showing how often "pit bull" and many other related terms is searched for on Google is not the same as population statistics, sorry.)


----------



## stafinois (Jun 16, 2010)

Even if there are statistically more attacks by Pitbull-ish things, why would that be a surprise? A trip to any shelter in a populated area will find it filled with Pitbull-ish dogs. There are TONS of them owned by idiots. They are the dog of choice of Macho idiots. If tomorrow the Standard Poodle became the coveted Testicles-on-a-Leash status symbol, guess what breed would be making headlines?

It's a numbers thing. It doesn't make the dogs any more dangerous. There are just what those who allow those things to happen tend to choose.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

stafinois said:


> Even if there are statistically more attacks by Pitbull-ish things, why would that be a surprise? A trip to any shelter in a populated area will find it filled with Pitbull-ish dogs. There are TONS of them owned by idiots. They are the dog of choice of Macho idiots. If tomorrow the Standard Poodle became the coveted Testicles-on-a-Leash status symbol, guess what breed would be making headlines?
> 
> It's a numbers thing. It doesn't make the dogs any more dangerous. There are just what those who allow those things to happen tend to choose.


This. Exactly. Bully breeds are considered high risk for homeowners' insurance because there are just so many of them and too many owned by people who shouldn't even own a goldfish.

I've met a couple of responsibly bred/owned bull breeds and they have absolutely blown me away. Friendly, outgoing, loyal, and unshakeable. It's a shame the wrong crowd likes the APBT so much.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> Can you find me a Border Collie or Pointer that can do damage like this. http://wgno.com/2013/05/30/woman-who-lost-eye-ear-and-arms-recounts-pit-bull-attack/
> I don't really want to link the more gruesome ones.


Yes. I think three BCs or Pointers can do just as much damage as those three pitties.

I think, yes, we need to respect the APBT. But on that same note, we need to respect all breeds of dog. Pitbulls are NOT special snowflakes. They are dogs. Dogs who are prone to DA and have a lot of negativity wrapped up into them. Dogs who, generally, are soft and not nearly as sharp as many other breeds. 

I don't want to be on the end of a 60lb Aussie bite or 60lb pibble or a 60lb Belgian Mal bite. Both mean business. Aussies can and are occasionally used for personal protection so I wouldnt underestimate them either.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

parus said:


> Only dog I've ever been legitimately attacked by was an ACD. That dog was something else. I've been nipped/bitten by a few anklebiters, but eh. Fearful little twerps with tiny teeth.
> 
> I'm not dismissing the ER anecdotes out of hand, but anecdotal evidence isn't safe to generalize from. Based on where I live I could say "Most white men wear full beards" but I very much doubt that's true about the country or the world.


I know we shouldn't be demonizing pit bulls, but can we refrain from reflecting the blame onto another breed? ANY breed, but especially mine since they are close to my heart.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Nobody is demonizing another breed. All parus said was that they were attacked by an ACD; they didn't say anything about ACDs in general being vicious (and also pointed out that anecdotal evidence isn't good evidence).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I think the most horrifying part of this for me is someone who wants to own a bit is invested in seeing them as more dangerous than other dogs. 

Like that's a selling point? 

No. People doing that (seeing it as a unique and novel thing and want pits BECAUSE of it) is what gets the breed in trouble.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

> Quote Originally Posted by Foresthund View Post
> why larger more powerful dogs do not last in the pit against them


This is a COMPLETE Fallacy.... 

I have a lifetime of using dogs in working and hunting situations.... Including hog hunting. etc.... 

I have done bite work, been a decoy... Been bit, attacked etc by a BUNCH of different dogs....

So I am a pretty good judge of a dog's capabilities... I have owned three game bred pits. Four if you include Runt, that was one of my fathers dogs that I stole at four years old.... I have also owned a well bred working line Rottie. 116 pounds.... I am NOT advocating fighting and my dogs never fought.... But my Rottie would have DESTROYED any of the pits I have owned. And all had over 100 hog catches in their lives... 

Fact.... Pits, conditioned pits... Are QUICK, AGILE dogs.... Speed is their ally..... Not bite force....

Having been in a bite suit against, pits, GSDs. Bel Mals, Dutchies, Rotties, etc..... Pits do not even come close to GSDs or Rotties. And noticebly less than Bel Mals.... Dutchies... Forget it....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

parus said:


> Only dog I've ever been legitimately attacked by was an ACD. That dog was something else. I've been nipped/bitten by a few anklebiters, but eh. Fearful little twerps with tiny teeth.
> 
> I'm not dismissing the ER anecdotes out of hand, but anecdotal evidence isn't safe to generalize from. Based on where I live I could say "Most white men wear full beards" but I very much doubt that's true about the country or the world.


I am sorry to hear that... But an ACD bent on hurting you.... Will hurt you....


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Yea the idea that a pit bull magically is capable of doing more physical damage than another breed of the same general size... is laughable, honestly. Let's toss that on the compost pile along with the whole "locking jaws" thing, mmkay?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Crantastic said:


> Nobody is demonizing another breed. All parus said was that they were attacked by an ACD; they didn't say anything about ACDs in general being vicious (and also pointed out that anecdotal evidence isn't good evidence).


ACDs... and I love them with my entire being..... Are naturally aloof suspicious and tenacious.... can be testy to say the least..


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> ACDs... and I love them with my entire being..... Are naturally aloof suspicious and tenacious.... can be testy to say the least..


You wouldn't catch me poking an ACD with a stick. Lol they mean business! But that can said for a lot of breeds.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Yea the idea that a pit bull magically is capable of doing more physical damage than another breed of the same general size... is laughable, honestly. Let's toss that on the compost pile along with the whole "locking jaws" thing, mmkay?


I am not happy about this.... But my Alpaca guy as I call him.... I have posted about him before.... Fired Hired me about 7 years ago for coyote control.... Finally on my suggestion picked up an a couple of LGDs.... Picked up a nice anatolian puppy and had a Maremma shipped in ready to work out of sheep farm in wyoming... 

Called me in a panic one day... (He is a city guy that has decided I am the answer to all questions country) His Maremma came up to house with a lot of blood on him. He found a dead dog in his field. Only his Maremma was out.... I tell him to relax and drive over...... Get there and and find a dead what looked very much like a pit bull to me, in his pasture. 

The dead dog had obviously been in a dog fight.... I called the cow deputy for him.... He did a report... No big deal. Legal to kill a dog harassing livestock in Florida by any means. Deputy documented the incident in case a dog owner raised an issue.... I then helped him wash his dog down and look for injuries.... Once the blood was gone.... there were no injuries...


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> This is a COMPLETE Fallacy....
> 
> I have a lifetime of using dogs in working and hunting situations.... Including hog hunting. etc....
> 
> ...


Okay I have to sort of admit something I don't want to,but sense I already feel like I`m making people of this forum hate me why not. A while back I had way to much curiosity over dog fighting and I have seen some dog fight videos on Russian and Asian web sites. From what I recall dogs like GSD's and Rotts could possibly beat a pit if the fight goes under 15 minutes,likely less than 5 but will give up or get heat stroke at some point. The dogs that could do the most fatal damage to pits where live stock guardians like Ovtcharka's,kangals and Tibetan Mastiffs,and sometimes even they lost. And that is even with ruthless street fighting,the kind in a pit is much more strict. Sense by pit rules a dog that stands its ground but doesn't scratch quick enough loses,which even the Live stock guardians would likely do. I've also heard of Pit bulls killing Rottweilers and GSD's in the news. I think I only seen a couple with Rotts and GSDs win against a Pit before the video was cut off in the middle,as in the pit either gave up or died. Other videos had no clear winner.
My Rott in his fight with the lose pit showed he can do a lot of damage to another dog and in a quick amount of time and is very pain tolerant,but I doubt he could fight to the death against a game pit. Tosa inu's can rarely win against a APBT despite the more powerful jaws and bigger size. it's not something I like to be true,but when you specially breed a dog for over a century for a certain ability a breed with none will not do as well. Not saying Pits never lose,even the game bred ones could get killed and many shelter pits and staffs are not even remotely game or any sort of threat even if pushed to dog or human alike. In the past their was sometimes other large terriers fought against Pits,one Airedale was told it beat three good pits before losing to the fourth. But those cases seem to be extremely rare and the Airedales back then where more game. 

Yes a dog the same size of a pit could do equal damage and some dogs more,it's just rarer to find one that will go all out in fighting another dog or human it seems like,although sense Pits are not that often bred for protection they may have more bite inhibition in that field if they consider it a game. While dogs like GSD or Rotts will have more bite inhibition against other dogs.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Foresthund said:


> Okay I have to sort of admit something I don't want to,but sense I already feel like I`m making people of this forum hate me why not. A while back I had way to much curiosity over dog fighting and I have seen some dog fight videos on Russian and Asian web sites. From what I recall dogs like GSD's and Rotts could possibly beat a pit if the fight goes under 15 minutes,likely less than 5 but will give up or get heat stroke at some point. The dogs that could do the most fatal damage to pits where live stock guardians. And that is even with ruthless street fighting,the kind in a pit is much more strict. I've also heard of Pit bulls killing Rottweilers and GSD's in the news.
> My Rott in his fight with the lose pit showed he can do a lot of damage to another dog and in a quick amount of time and is very pain tolerant,but I doubt he could fight to the death against a game pit. Tosa inu's can rarely win against a APBT despite the more powerful jaws and bigger size. it's not something I like to be true,but when you specially breed a dog for over a century for a certain ability a breed with none will not do as well. Not saying Pits never lose,even the game bred ones could get killed and many shelter pits and staffs are not even remotely game or any sort of threat even if pushed to dog or human alike. In the past their was sometimes other large terriers fought against Pits,one Airedale was told it beat three good pits before losing to the fourth. But those cases seem to be extremely rare and the Airedales back then where more game. Yes a dog the same size of a pit could do equal damage and some dogs more,it's rarer to find one that will go all out in fighting another dog or human it seems like,although sense Pits are not that often bred for protection they may have more bite inhibition in that field if they consider it a game. While dogs like GSD or Rotts will have more bite inhibition against other dogs.



Bite inhibition.... ONLY applies to dogs biting humans... A dog feeling threatened by another dog will bite for everything they are worth...


News accounts of pits hurting or killing GSDs... etc... Mean nothing... They are anecdotal at best... You know nothing about the condition of either dog....

Those Asian videos mean little as well. . 

I will explain this... I have been present... For I do not know.... A couple thousand catches of hogs by pit bulls. they are GREAT at it... The best... Without equal... But NOT because of bite power or strength ... But because of quickness. They rush in... Grab the hog and grab hold of it in a way the hog cannot get to them.... From there.... They simply hold on and their body weight wears the hog down... And hogs wear down quickly.... I have jumped in on a bayed up hog and held on.... They hog lasts a few minutes... At best... 

A GSD, Rottie and all the LGD breed possess the power... to break and in most cases.... CRUSH bone.... 

quickness and agility is negated by a bite that can easily crush a spine in a single bit...

You are WAY WAY off base here....


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Fact.... Pits, conditioned pits... Are QUICK, AGILE dogs.... Speed is their ally..... Not bite force....


I used to laugh when Xena was younger about how my GSD was so much faster and more agile than her, running circles around her. She got bigger and once she did I was shocked at how much faster she got! When she sprints, you'd better stay out of the way because she will just barrel into you at full speed! 50 pounds of dog slamming into you like that really hurts lol. But at the same time she could turn on a dime if she wanted, she's always jumping around as she runs. She runs circles around Eko now! 

I don't know, I really wouldn't want to go up against either of my dogs but if I really had to chose I'd pick Xena. She's smaller, quick and strong and she would hurt me but I could get her off of me. If my GSD decided to make me a snack I'm not sure I'd have much of a chance, he has shown multiple times he can very easily completely overpower me.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Bite inhibition.... ONLY applies to dogs biting humans... A dog feeling threatened by another dog will bite for everything they are worth...
> 
> 
> News accounts of pits hurting or killing GSDs... etc... Mean nothing... They are anecdotal at best... You know nothing about the condition of either dog....
> ...


It's true if you get a dog that can do immense damage,than a Pit a smaller dog would likely not stand a chance. Thus why dogs like Kangals are so good against them.

But Pits can be punishers as well against other dogs. With the book "The wold of the American Pit bull terrier" it has quotes like "Clamp was a rough, hard-biting bitch that would kill one if she got it down." , "Spike is the son of snooty and is a devastating,hard biting dog. No dog has ever lived that has gone under Spike.", "Tater was a brutal fighter. He was a powerful wrestle and would smash dogs into the ground and against pit walls. Even with his broken teeth,he was a very hard biter,and no dog ever lasted more than fifteen minutes under him. Rastus was known as the roughest dog in Carver's yard. He had broken dogs legs in rolls several times." "If Zebo didn't bust him up so badly in the beginning he might of won" So a Pit that happens to be a hard biter and game would be a tough match and in any match or news report I've yet to see a non fighting or live stock guardian breed do that kind of damage to a dog of equal size.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Crantastic said:


> Nobody is demonizing another breed. All parus said was that they were attacked by an ACD; they didn't say anything about ACDs in general being vicious (and also pointed out that anecdotal evidence isn't good evidence).


Thanks. Exactly; it just happened to be an ACD. 

Still, the first and second worst animal injuries I've ever sustained were from horse and a cat respectively, so dogs _in general_ aren't even in my top three most dangerous list, lol.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I know we shouldn't be demonizing pit bulls, but can we refrain from reflecting the blame onto another breed? ANY breed, but especially mine since they are close to my heart.


I absolutely did not intend to turn this onto ACDs or herders in general. Foresthund called out herders claiming that they could not/would not do the damage that pit bulls could. In my experience herders are more guarded with strangers and less willing to take crap from people. It isn't bad, it is what they were bred for. They are certainly more than capable of doing damage, any dog of comparable size can do damage, unless they have no teeth I suppose. The worst bite I've ever had came from our pet cat. I was 2 and he very nearly broke my arm. I surprised him when he was fighting another cat, he didn't really mean to bite me.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Remaru said:


> I absolutely did not intend to turn this onto ACDs or herders in general. Foresthund called out herders claiming that they could not/would not do the damage that pit bulls could. In my experience herders are more guarded with strangers and less willing to take crap from people. It isn't bad, it is what they were bred for. They are certainly more than capable of doing damage, any dog of comparable size can do damage, unless they have no teeth I suppose. The worst bite I've ever had came from our pet cat. I was 2 and he very nearly broke my arm. I surprised him when he was fighting another cat, he didn't really mean to bite me.


I meant that most would not,doesn't mean all dogs the same size would 100% of the time do less damage. Also a working bred ACD is a more serious harder tempered dog than many other herders.

Read this. http://www.phillyfit.com/Articles/3-09/28-30 PhillyFIT 0309.pdf


----------



## Buffalo_Soldier (Aug 29, 2014)

stafinois said:


> Even if there are statistically more attacks by Pitbull-ish things, why would that be a surprise? A trip to any shelter in a populated area will find it filled with Pitbull-ish dogs. There are TONS of them owned by idiots. They are the dog of choice of Macho idiots. If tomorrow the Standard Poodle became the coveted Testicles-on-a-Leash status symbol, guess what breed would be making headlines?
> 
> It's a numbers thing. It doesn't make the dogs any more dangerous. There are just what those who allow those things to happen tend to choose.


I'm a pit owner, and from my perspective and experience you've hit two nails on two heads:

1.) Pit owners are stereotyped as much as their dogs are. Pit bulls are praised for being such an loyal, affectionate dog because since its arrival on American shores, a vast majority of breeders and owners have bred and purchased specifically for these qualities. The guy who has little interest in a companion, but buys a pit anyway to enhance his personal image and possibly use the dog as a weapon certainly exists, but he's about as common as the guy who doesn't like dogs but buys a toy breed to impress a girl on valentines day, or the suburbanite who buys an akc champ golden retriever just to keep up with the joneses. These types have always existed and always will as long as dogs are sold on an open market with no consequence for turning them in to a shelter. In fact, I have strong suspicions that many bsl aren't even really aimed at keeping pit bulls out of an area, but keeping "the types of people" commonly associated with pit bulls out (read "types of people however you want).

2.) It is most certainly a numbers game. I wish I could remember the three sources where I've read this so I could cite them, but it's my understanding that "pit bulls" (quotation marks since that term refers to a lot of different dogs) are by far the most popular dog in the country, accounting for as much as 55% of the total dog population. With numbers like that, it would pretty easy to paint any dog problem as a pit bull problem


----------



## Gumiho (Mar 16, 2013)

Foresthund said:


> It's true if you get a dog that can do immense damage,than a Pit a smaller dog would likely not stand a chance. Thus why dogs like Kangals are so good against them.
> 
> But Pits can be punishers as well against other dogs. With the book "The wold of the American Pit bull terrier" it has quotes like "Clamp was a rough, hard-biting bitch that would kill one if she got it down." , "Spike is the son of snooty and is a devastating,hard biting dog. No dog has ever lived that has gone under Spike.", "Tater was a brutal fighter. He was a powerful wrestle and would smash dogs into the ground and against pit walls. Even with his broken teeth,he was a very hard biter,and no dog ever lasted more than fifteen minutes under him. Rastus was known as the roughest dog in Carver's yard. He had broken dogs legs in rolls several times." "If Zebo didn't bust him up so badly in the beginning he might of won" So a Pit that happens to be a hard biter and game would be a tough match and in any match or news report I've yet to see a non fighting or live stock guardian breed do that kind of damage to a dog of equal size.




And yet again. Their aggression and lack of inhibition against dogs is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING THAN TOWARDS HUMANS!

And again, any dog can "Punish" another dog depending on mash up. Those examples you're using are Pits against other pits. Any time two animals are against each other, one is going to come out on top regardless. Doesn't prove your point.

And "Hard biter" isn't something just seen and desired in Pits. Its desired in Protection sports too and is applicable to your breed as well. Its a reference to a full, calm, well-placed, strong bite that allows for a solid hold.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

stafinois said:


> Even if there are statistically more attacks by Pitbull-ish things, why would that be a surprise? A trip to any shelter in a populated area will find it filled with Pitbull-ish dogs. There are TONS of them owned by idiots. They are the dog of choice of Macho idiots. If tomorrow the Standard Poodle became the coveted Testicles-on-a-Leash status symbol, guess what breed would be making headlines?
> 
> It's a numbers thing. It doesn't make the dogs any more dangerous. There are just what those who allow those things to happen tend to choose.



You've pretty much nailed it with this right here. Even if a lot of these dog attacks you hear about in the media were indeed Pit Bulls, it still wouldn't define the breed as a whole, because when you get a country that's so over run with one particular breed, of COURSE there's going to be more bite incidents from that breed type, because there's more OF that breed around. 

As far as the herding dog/ACD thing goes, I will say this. I own both a Pit Bull and an ACD. Both of my dogs are really nice and have never bitten anyone, but if either of them would and would do it with conviction, it would be my ACD. He has FAR less patience and tolerance for people than my Pit Bull, and if he got angry enough, I've no doubt he could severely mess someone up every bit as much as a Pit Bull could. That's a textbook ACD thing. Any dog who was bred to have drive will have the potential to be tenacious, and there's a LOT of existing breeds out there that have it.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

RCloud said:


> You've pretty much nailed it with this right here. Even if a lot of these dog attacks you hear about in the media were indeed Pit Bulls, it still wouldn't define the breed as a whole, because when you get a country that's so over run with one particular breed, of COURSE there's going to be more bite incidents from that breed type, because there's more OF that breed around.
> 
> As far as the herding dog/ACD thing goes, I will say this. I own both a Pit Bull and an ACD. Both of my dogs are really nice and have never bitten anyone, but if either of them would and would do it with conviction, it would be my ACD. He has FAR less patience and tolerance for people than my Pit Bull, and if he got angry enough, I've no doubt he could severely mess someone up every bit as much as a Pit Bull could. That's a textbook ACD thing. Any dog who was bred to have drive will have the potential to be tenacious, and there's a LOT of existing breeds out there that have it.



Their are plenty of hard and tenacious breeds,but at the time it is Pit bulls that are the most popular,poorly owned and badly bred. Pits have a lot of issues that go beyond attacks. If their popularity and responsible ownership went up we wouldn't really have a problem. There's a handful of breeds I find way more intimidating than a Pit bull,even outside of those breeds theirs individual dogs that I can find way more intimidating than the average Pit,and admittingly personally I`m more nervous to pet a dog like a GSD or Dobe than a Pit,but for now they haven't been common enough to be a issue.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

It sounds like you actually agree with one of the things we've been saying, which is:

Most pit bulls/pit mixes are not a danger to people.

Because there are _so many_ pit bulls/mixes in North America, even if only a very small percentage of the population is dangerous to people, that's still a lot of dogs.

Add in misidentification to that (attacks being attributed to pits when they weren't done by pits) and you can see why people who don't know any better assume that _all_ pits are dangerous to people.

The problem is with the people who want the breed as a status symbol, not with anything inherent in the breed. Pits do have a natural tendency to be dog aggressive, but that is not the same thing as human aggressive.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I'm going to butt in here with another issue that I think could cause problems as well. 

First off we've got the "old style" (and uninformed) view of the "pit".....owned by a macho idiot, who wants it to be mean and bite things, bad ol man eater, mauls everything within a 20 foot radius

Now there seems to be quite a movement (though it hasn't overcome the pit hater propaganda people yet), to lash against the view of the pit as a man eater, toting them as very sweet, gentle, loyal dogs that have been misunderstood. As a breed I do think they have been misunderstood, and can be very wonderful, for a lot of the reasons already mentioned. BUT, I do think we all agree that there is at least a propensity for DA, at least a little bit more than many other breeds. Given that, and the movement towards the non demonizing of the pit, I'm concerned we're going to end up with another situation that could cause problems for the breed. The soft-hearted rescuer, the one intent on saving this misunderstood creature that just doesn't understand that a pit (especially a game bred pit, or just a severely badly bred one) can be a lot of dog. SO, we could have a bunch of well meaning people wandering around intent on proving that their pit is just as sweet and loving as the next dog, intent on taking it to any dog park or public event that they can manage.....that also sounds like a bit of a recipe for disaster. Sure if the person is good with their dog, and they have trained it well, etc....but if they haven't.....sigh....

Its just that I've noticed that "The Rescue Dog" has become a bit of a trend for some (I'm not talking here necessarily, I mean social media, and a variety of other very social settings), if the "Sweet Pit" becomes a trend...I dunno. It would on the surface seem good for the breed, but could also hold a lot of problems. 

Just a thought....


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I'm going to butt in here with another issue that I think could cause problems as well.
> 
> First off we've got the "old style" (and uninformed) view of the "pit".....owned by a macho idiot, who wants it to be mean and bite things, bad ol man eater, mauls everything within a 20 foot radius
> 
> ...


And I've run into people like this as well, and it also annoys me. The Pit Bull "dog mommies" who really truly do think Pit Bulls could never ever do any harm at all and are giant babies, and let them run around and do as they please, and if an issue arises, it's always the other dog's fault, even if the Pit Bull was infact the one to start it. That's not cool either.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yep. Both extremes are bad. People need to be realistic about pits -- they need to realize that they're neither "man-eaters" nor "nanny dogs," but normal dogs who need to be trained and managed properly. People in general need to research breeds and be prepared for the strong possibility of common breed traits popping up -- DA in pits, herding tendencies in herders, high prey drive in hunting breeds, etc.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> It sounds like you actually agree with one of the things we've been saying, which is:
> 
> Most pit bulls/pit mixes are not a danger to people.
> 
> ...


I do agree that most are great dogs and very unlikely to harm a person. In fact their one of the dogs I feel most comfortable with people and myself outside of their property,although also one of the least with other dogs and small animals. Although despite owning a Malamute mix I don't trust them or Huskies worth a bean with small animals either,especially if not raised together. But the over breeding,bad breeding,mistreatment,ignorance,being a slightly more serious dog to begin with it doesn't seem too unusual that they these attacks do happen at this rate. Although a dog like a ovtcharka I feel would be much worse if they became as popular as Pits,they have a higher potential for HA with some DA and just bigger,more powerful yet less biddable and easy to train as a pit they just are not a urban living kind of dog.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

RCloud said:


> And I've run into people like this as well, and it also annoys me. The Pit Bull "dog mommies" who really truly do think Pit Bulls could never ever do any harm at all and are giant babies, and let them run around and do as they please, and if an issue arises, it's always the other dog's fault, even if the Pit Bull was infact the one to start it. That's not cool either.


I move every one to two years and pretty much everywhere I've been had a few pits and Staffs running wild with owners that seem to be un-existent or unable to recall their dogs. I see them way more running wild than all the Rottweilers,GSD's and Dobermans combined. As well as kids with DA pits that drop leashes,leave back doors open and all that. They even tried blaming me when one attacked mine,despite my dog always being on leash. This is what is getting me frustrated and why I don't want them treated like just any other breed or blank slates that could never show any sort of aggression or prey drive because they were spoiled and loved.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Foresthund said:


> I move every one to two years and pretty much everywhere I've been had a few pits and Staffs running wild with owners that seem to be un-existent or unable to recall their dogs. I see them way more running wild than all the Rottweilers,GSD's and Dobermans combined. As well as kids with DA pits that drop leashes,leave back doors open and all that. They even tried blaming me when one attacked mine,despite my dog always being on leash. This is what is getting me frustrated and why I don't want them treated like just any other breed or blank slates that could never show any sort of aggression or prey drive because they were spoiled and loved.


But the problem lays completely 100% with people and their lack of being good dog owners, NOT the breed itself, and it should be addressed as such. People need to learn what it means to be a good, responsible dog owner. They need to take the time to learn about the breed of dogs they get (any breed), to train the dog, follow laws responsibly, as well as learn proper dog owner etiquette. That's how you solve this problem, NOT by feeding into the myths and BS, and making Pit Bulls out to be something they are not (bloodthirsty monsters or perfect angels).


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Foresthund said:


> I do agree that most are great dogs and very unlikely to harm a person. In fact their one of the dogs I feel most comfortable with people and myself outside of their property,although also one of the least with other dogs and small animals. Although despite owning a Malamute mix I don't trust them or Huskies worth a bean with small animals either,especially if not raised together. But the over breeding,bad breeding,mistreatment,ignorance,being a slightly more serious dog to begin with it doesn't seem too unusual that they these attacks do happen at this rate.


At what rate, though? You just said that the majority of pits are great dogs and are unlikely to harm a person. You can't say that and then say that pits attack at a high rate.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

RCloud said:


> But the problem lays completely 100% with people and their lack of being good dog owners, NOT the breed itself, and it should be addressed as such. People need to learn what it means to be a good, responsible dog owner. They need to take the time to learn about the breed of dogs they get (any breed), to train the dog, follow laws responsibly, as well as learn proper dog owner etiquette. That's how you solve this problem, NOT by feeding into the myths and BS, and making Pit Bulls out to be something they are not.


It has always been more of a human fault and who I truly blame,but also why I said some of what I did. So perhaps people would treat and respect their Pit bull better. Sometimes respecting a breed means understanding what they are capable of. I get frustrated when it seems its okay for just anyone to own or want a pit but when they bring up GSD's,Border Collies,Aussies,Papillons,ACD's,Siberian Huskies or something else suddenly everyone wants to talk them out of it and freely mentions the worst about those breeds. But with Pits and sometimes other controversial breeds it's like people are afraid to say one thing negative about the breed. Which despite the risk of Pit bull haters using it as an advantage I don't think is helping anyone. I`m thinking hard about getting a SBT as a next dog so it's not like I want bully breeds banned either.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RCloud said:


> But the problem lays completely 100% with people and their lack of being good dog owners, NOT the breed itself, and it should be addressed as such. People need to learn what it means to be a good, responsible dog owner. They need to take the time to learn about the breed of dogs they get (any breed), to train the dog, follow laws responsibly, as well as learn proper dog owner etiquette. That's how you solve this problem, NOT by feeding into the myths and BS, and making Pit Bulls out to be something they are not (bloodthirsty monsters or perfect angels).


EXACTLY!!!!!!

IF a guy gets drunk, drives and kills a family..... NO one blames ford.......

If a guy leaves his gun on the kitchen counter and a kid shoots himself, no one blames Smith and Wesson. (well some ill informed people do...) 

If a parent does not supervise a child and it gets in a swimming pool and drowns. No one blames the pool......


A dog ONLY harms someone when the owner is irresponsible. 


And that worries me with ACDs seeming to climb in popularity... they are extremely unforgiving of negligent owners..... Having owned pits as well. Pits are FAR FAR more forgiving....

Pits generally like people.... If a person is hostile towards a pit, it generally moves away....

ACDs are suspicious of everyone they do not know. And frankly do not like some folks they do know. IF a person is hostile to an ACD, the ACD is more than likely to take offense and teach them a few bloody lessons in hostility.

Pits are FAR more forgiving of poor owners than nearly all of the other terrier breeds, MOST of the working breeds (in fact I cannot think of a single one) and a majority of the herding breeds.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Foresthund said:


> want a pit but when they bring up GSD's,Border Collies,Aussies,Papillons,ACD's,Siberian Huskies or something else suddenly everyone wants to talk them out of it and freely mentions the worst about those breeds.


But those breeds are not supposed to be touchy feely loving on people. Pits are... And MOST often display this. 

I have an ACD bitch here, and has not met a new person in 8 years she likes.... She will not eat them because she is obedient to me. But NO one... and I mean NO one comes in the house with her loose, if I am not here.... 

I co own an ACD Bitch that does not even like me.... She will not bite me... But she gets ZERO joy out of affection and interaction with me. 

And that is completely normal... ACDs are supposed to distrust strangers and be ready to act if they make an aggressive move towards their owners. To me that is an admirable trait... I LOVE that about them. But you have to know how to manage it... 

Merlin has been criticized because he is social and loves public events. He loves going to educational events, he loves going to schools, nursing homes, etc. 

I have to explain and have demonstrated that is a game he has learned.... He is NOT that dog that relishes ten people's hands on him at one time or meeting a thousand new people a day at home. Walk in my house uninvited by me (even my wife does not count in his eyes) get in my vehicle.... He will bite and harm someone. Meet a random stranger on the street? He shows no interest in interaction. He simply stares at them. Waiting for a wrong move.... 

He loves public events and meeting people, because he gets reward and recognition by me... And very few ACD owners pull this off... I could not have 20 years ago... 

Yet I could take one of my game bred pits into a school to meet children when I was 18 years old.....


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And that worries me with ACDs seeming to climb in popularity... they are extremely unforgiving of negligent owners..... Having owned pits as well. Pits are FAR FAR more forgiving....
> 
> Pits generally like people.... If a person is hostile towards a pit, it generally moves away....
> 
> ...


Yup. While Ma'ii is a pretty friendly dog who wouldn't just bite someone under normal circumstances, I have heard him let out some seriously mean snarls and threatening gestures towards people who have man-handled him. I've always managed to intervene before anything happened, but I'm confident if I didn't he'd of bitten the crap out of them. 

Where as with Charlotte, you can do whatever you want to her, and she doesn't even flinch. At most if you scare her, she'd tuck her tail and slink away. 

I don't recommend any dog breed to anyone without knowing what the person and their lifestyle is like first.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Remaru said:


> I absolutely did not intend to turn this onto ACDs or herders in general. Foresthund called out herders claiming that they could not/would not do the damage that pit bulls could. In my experience herders are more guarded with strangers and less willing to take crap from people. It isn't bad, it is what they were bred for. They are certainly more than capable of doing damage, any dog of comparable size can do damage, unless they have no teeth I suppose. The worst bite I've ever had came from our pet cat. I was 2 and he very nearly broke my arm. I surprised him when he was fighting another cat, he didn't really mean to bite me.


Yeah they aren't more powerful, they are just less willing to take crap from strangers than pit bulls. The pit bulls I have known are surprisingly tolerant of crap (whether intentional or not) from humans. 

Sorry if I got a little passionate, lol. I just didn't want to see this turned into a free for all on all breeds ... mine included


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> At what rate, though? You just said that the majority of pits are great dogs and are unlikely to harm a person. You can't say that and then say that pits attack at a high rate.



Well with the amount of Pits and Staffs out there even if most are good dogs they can still attack at a higher rate than other dogs at this time. Most dogs altogether never even break someones skin and not all dogs attack people in equal rates. Kind of like how most men are good but still do more violent crimes than women.

Rottweilers had a high rate of attacks in the 90's and this is where most of their attacks and fatal maulings came from. Forty attacks in ten years way surpasses the top decade of popularity in Dobermans,GSD's and even surpassed Pits for at least a year or two from what I remember. This doesn't mean that Rotts are not mostly good dogs just that they can be serious ones if treated poorly and overbred,the registration numbers where also highest at this time. By 2002 Pits still had 92 fatalities and the highest on the list and this was in Karen Delise book who is a Pit bull advocate and breeder. If that trend in Rottweilers still kept up than who knows who would be topping the list,and Rotts outside of DA(although they have some of that trait too)can be just as serious. But the ownership and popularity of Rotts seems to have changed for the most part yet not so much with Pits so far,this is why I've been more harsh on them and their owners. This is also why I dislike Rottweilers being treated like innocent teddy bears as well.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Foresthund said:


> Well with the amount of Pits and Staffs out there even if most are good dogs they can still attack at a higher rate than other dogs at this time. Most dogs altogether never even break someones skin and not all dogs attack people in equal rates. Kind of like how most men are good but still do more violent crimes than women.
> 
> Rottweilers had a high rate of attacks in the 90's and this is where most of their attacks and fatal maulings came from. Forty attacks in ten years way surpasses the top decade of popularity in Dobermans,GSD's and even surpassed Pits for at least a year or two from what I remember. This doesn't mean that Rotts are not mostly good dogs just that they can be serious ones if treated poorly and overbred. By 2002 Pits still had 92 fatalities and the highest on the list and this was in Karen Delise book who is a Pit bull advocate and breeder. If that trend in Rottweilers still kept up than who knows who would be topping the list,and Rotts outside of DA(although they have some of that trait too)can be just as serious. But the ownership and popularity of Rotts seems to have changed for the most part yet not so much with Pits so far,this is why I've been more harsh on them and their owners. This is also why I dislike Rottweilers being treated like innocent teddy bears as well.


OMG dude, there are NO rates! Everything out there that claims Pit Bulls have the "highest rates" on dog attacks and bite statistics is a load, because there was never an official study conducted, and the ones that do exist are biased crap based on unreliable, inaccurate media reports.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

RCloud said:


> OMG dude, there are NO rates! Everything out there that claims Pit Bulls have the "highest rates" on dog attacks and bite statistics is a load, because there was never an official study conducted, and the ones that do exist are biased crap based on unreliable, inaccurate media reports.


Okay then I guess all dog breeds and types attack,are euthanized,are adopted,bite,are heroes and live about the same length and the same amount because their are no rates and haven't exactly gotten good enough studies to prove their pure bloodiness or phenotype of the dogs involved.

(Also there is no good bite statistics or known rates and I thought I said that) Fatalities go beyond whats on the local news. The person that said those statistics also has a picture of one of the dogs in that early picture and never said it was a pit bull either,so yeah.


----------



## Eenypup (Mar 21, 2014)

All of this "statistics" and "ranks" mumbo jumbo is just laughable to me. Even IF the "statistics" touted by anti-pit propagandists happened to be true by dumb luck, that would still make pit type dogs INCREDIBLY friendly considering how many stupid people own them. (Nevermind that pit in these "stats" does not talk about a specific breed) Pit _types_, aka APBTs, staffies, mastiff mixes, bully mixes, lab mixes, or any other dog perceived to be like a pit bull make up a VAST majority of the dogs out there. And an even MORE vast majority of dogs being owned by irresponsible owners. And an INCREDIBLY vast majority of dogs being used by idiots for whatever illegal purposes they see fit while likely treating the dogs very, very poorly.

If they were INHERENTLY vicious, then, we'd be seeing way way more deaths. What is the statistic they made up? 60% of dog bites or something? Less than that? I don't care to look it up. But considering bully breed mixes/dogs that look like pits make up probably around that percentage of all of the dogs in the US, I'd say that statistic makes them a pretty dang average type of dog. Hm, interesting! I guess they're just normal dogs after all!


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Your statements are contradictory, Foresthund. You say that most pits are _not_ a danger to humans. Yet you claim that pits tend to bite at a higher rate than other breeds. That would mean that a high percentage of pits _are_ dangerous to humans. Which is it?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

RCloud said:


> OMG dude, there are NO rates! Everything out there that claims Pit Bulls have the "highest rates" on dog attacks and bite statistics is a load, because there was never an official study conducted, and the ones that do exist are biased crap based on unreliable, inaccurate media reports.


Exactly.

Also, _how many_ bites caused by a particular breed in a period of time is NOT a rate and is virtually useless data. You need to take into consideration the population before you can call it a rate or compare relative risks from different breeds.

(*insert screaming*)

Let's say breed A caused 100 reported bites in the US in 2013, and breed B caused 1000 reported bites the same year. Breed B sounds pretty dangerous, right?

But what if there were 1000 breed A's registered in the US in 2013, and 100000 registered breed B's registered in the US in 2013

That means that 100/1000 or 10% of breed A caused a bite severe enough to be reported, but only 1000/100000 or 1% of breed B. 

Which bites at a higher rate?

To throw some more wrinkles in, say A is a small breed and B is a larger breed, so bites from breed B are more likely to be reported. Or that unregistered A's and A mixes are quite rare but unregistered B's and B mixes are very, very common, so there are actually far more B's than is apparent by registration information. 

Which breed bites at a higher rate? Which is more dangerous to humans?

THAT, in addition to problems with breed identification, is why simply saying how many bites any given breed caused in a given period of time is next to useless information. It's so useless that the CDC doesn't even keep track of breed anymore.


ETA: At one point I did actually track down a bunch of population and bite data for different breeds and calculate the relative rates of bites as a function of population of registered members of the breed, but I sadly did not keep it nor am I willing to go looking for it again. But most breeds came out pretty much the same across the board for the data that was available, which as pointed out does not account for bajillions of unregistered pits and pit mixes.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Your statements are contradictory, Foresthund. You say that most pits are _not_ a danger to humans. Yet you claim that pits tend to bite at a higher rate than other breeds. That would mean that a high percentage of pits _are_ dangerous to humans. Which is it?


 I`m not contradicting your just not listening and cherry picking my arguments.
How many times do I have to say that bites are different than fatal maulings,and when did I claim Pits bite more? Some of the highest bites are thought to be Labs,Goldens,Cocker Spaniels and Dachshunds,but still that is only a thought without real statistics outside of certain cities. I was counting fatal maulings not bites,which matter more,I have yet to see proof on pits biting at a higher than all other breeds. A higher rate of Pit bulls,GSD's and Rottweilers may be more dangerous to people than some other popular breeds. That doesn't mean all are bad dogs or even most are bad dogs,it means in the wrong hands they could do more damage.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Okay then, changed a couple words.

You say that most pits are _not_ a danger to humans. Yet you claim that pits tend to fatally attack people at a higher rate than other breeds. That would mean that a high _percentage_ of pits kill humans, so most pits _are_ a danger to humans. Which is it?

Also: Everything sassafras said.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

RCloud said:


> OMG dude, there are NO rates! Everything out there that claims Pit Bulls have the "highest rates" on dog attacks and bite statistics is a load, because there was never an official study conducted, and the ones that do exist are biased crap based on unreliable, inaccurate media reports.


The closest we can get to any real, hard numbers is dogs ID'ed as "pit bull" (pedigreed bull breeds, mixes of such breeds, heinz 52 dogs that have a vague bull phenotype, and "pit bulls" with 0% bull ancestry) most likely are, as a group, responsible for the biggest share of money given out due to insurance claims than any other breed ID. They probably are, but I couldn't produce any real numbers.

That being said, that's a broad category which happens to be the BIGGEST group of dogs, numerically, in the whole United States. Of course you're going to get more money in insurance claims from that group by numbers alone. It's like hospital nurses wondering why most of the cancer patients aged 55 and older are Vietnam War veterans... The fact that most men that age fought in the war must have nothing to do with it... Must be the military that causes all the cancers to appear.

The next biggest groups in California are the chihuahuas/chihuahua-ish dogs and the labs. Labs aren't terribly popular with the worst kinds of dog owner, unlike bull breeds. And while chihuahuas tend to be just as popular in the same demographics as bull breeds, they aren't big enough to cause much damage. Incidentally, they compete with or even surpass the pit bull in their standing as the most "mean and angry"* breed where I live.


*Obviously, I'm referring to Joe and Jane Q. Public's opinions, regardless of how true or false they may be


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Okay then, changed a couple words.
> 
> You say that most pits are _not_ a danger to humans. Yet you claim that pits tend to fatally attack people at a higher rate than other breeds. That would mean that a high _percentage_ of pits kill humans, so most pits _are_ a danger to humans. Which is it?
> 
> ...


How is it everything sassafras said when you changed it from bites to mauling. Your contradicting yourself now.

Okay so if 1-2% Pit bulls attack someone versus 0.05% of Labs or whatever(just by theory) it would still mean that most Pits are safe with humans yet have a higher rate of attack than Labs. If Pits have say 2% of fatal mauling and all other breeds have 1% or less than it still means they have a higher rate of these fatal attacks. Having a higher rate of fatal attacks can still mean over 90% of Pits are safe with humans and why I`m opposed of breed bans.
Falls off stairs or ladders are one of the biggest causes of injuries and death in the household but that doesn't mean they cant be used safely and of course most people will never have a serious incident using them,and these things happen more often than Pit bull maulings.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Bites, maulings, fatal attacks... really, it's just semantics. The underlying principle is the same, that the raw numbers are essentially useless and don't really have any predictive value for an individual dog of a particular breed. Nobody is saying pit bulls don't bite or don't ever injure humans, but that there really isn't any evidence that they do it at a rate higher than any other breed. 

As far as insurance... that tends to be reactive on the part of insurance companies. So once a company pays out a certain number of claims for a certain breed, they're restricted. That's why Farmer's insurance just started limiting coverage for certain breeds in California, but not in other states. If it were a problem with pit bulls, then they'd have restricted them everywhere, but they aren't paying out more everywhere. Also, the problem with trying to use that data meaningfully outside of the context of "we don't want to pay out more than we have to" is that many people don't report bites by their own dogs and not all dog bites are even reported to the insurance company for the same reason not all fender benders are - people don't want their rates to go up. So it's not really meaningful data for anyone outside of whoever does the calculations of when something is costing the company too much.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

sassafras said:


> Nobody is saying pit bulls don't bite or don't ever injure humans, but that there really isn't any evidence that they do it at a rate higher than any other breed.


Yes. This.



Foresthund said:


> Okay so if 1-2% Pit bulls attack someone versus 0.05% of Labs or whatever(just by theory) it would still mean that most Pits are safe with humans yet have a higher rate of attack than Labs.


There is no evidence that a higher percentage of pits attack, though. A few of us have asked for proof that they do, and no one has been able to provide it. Remember, we're talking percentage of the population, not number of attacks. Those are different things.


----------



## Buffalo_Soldier (Aug 29, 2014)

Eenypup said:


> All of this "statistics" and "ranks" mumbo jumbo is just laughable to me. Even IF the "statistics" touted by anti-pit propagandists happened to be true by dumb luck, that would still make pit type dogs INCREDIBLY friendly considering how many stupid people own them. (Nevermind that pit in these "stats" does not talk about a specific breed) Pit _types_, aka APBTs, staffies, mastiff mixes, bully mixes, lab mixes, or any other dog perceived to be like a pit bull make up a VAST majority of the dogs out there. And an even MORE vast majority of dogs being owned by irresponsible owners. And an INCREDIBLY vast majority of dogs being used by idiots for whatever illegal purposes they see fit while likely treating the dogs very, very poorly.


Again, with the stereotyping of owners. Several on this thread have pointed out that there aren't any reliable, unbiased statistics regarding pit bull bites, and some have even implied that a truly fair system to compare bites by breed may not exist.

Yet many of you write confidently about the lack of integrity, responsibility, and general moral virtue in the pit owning community, as if somebody has managed to compile reliable, unbiased data on that. I wonder how you all reached the conclusion that pit owners are more susceptible to moral deprivation, or that at least the morally deprived are more attracted to pits.

On one hand, most dog problems are people problems, so shifting focus from the dogs to the owners is logical to a degree. On the other hand, you guys are all experienced and educated with/about and all have love and respective for pit bulls, but in this discussion have felt it necessary to cite the quality of a large segment of pit owners as reason for the bites that do occur.

Sure there's an underground world where a few thugs try to make a quick buck off of viscous dogs, but what about the last 20 pits YOU'VE SEEN PERSONALLY? Were they neglected and abused or in the care of those who loved them as family members? How are we classifying "macho idiots" these days? Are we going by lack of affection for their pets, criminal record, muscle and tattoo count, or just school district?

These aren't arbitrary questions. You all love pits, and when confronted with the issue of their unfair representation, many many of you have deflected blame to a (apparently large) group of people that you think are simultaneously flocking to the breed and ruining it, regardless of the fact that there is NO statistical evidence of who does and doesn't own them. Your response to a sweeping and unfair judgment of a dog breed is the sweeping and unfair judgement if a group of people.

The fact that you all seem to like the dog, and probably only associate with others who like and respect dogs, but in terms of bites the first thing you think of is the thugs or "macho idiots" who buy them highlights magnificently why BSLs are so successful. If pit lovers don't look past generalization for the truth about our breed and their owners, then how can we expect pit haters and neutralists to?

I believe you all posted your disdain towards this segment of pit owners genuinely contemplating the problem, but I also think there are many who propose and/or support BSL that know good and well the dogs are mostly blameless, and support the laws because they think it will cut down on those "macho idiots". As a pit supporters, we're much better off highlighting owners like us who spoil our dogs like children and make up a vast majority of pit owners, rather than shining the spotlight on the irresponsible minority . This will teach pit haters how little they have to fear, and gentrifiers that banning dog breeds doesn't build desirable communities.

Beautiful dog by the way!!!


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh god if the only irresponsible dog owners in the world were thugs and macho idiots, the world would be a better place. Sadly, the irresponsible are everywhere and everyone. 

BSL does not and cannot work IMO because there is so much more to the problem of dog bites than the breed involved. Ban pit bulls, and I bet you a dollar that the number of bites, serious bites, maulings, or whatever word you want to use doesn't change at all. Countries and cities where BSL has been enacted are showing us that. 

I would love to see a basic dog bite prevention class in every elementary school and every birthing/pregnancy class in this country. I'd bet you another dollar that would very, very substantially affect the number of serious bites that occur even if you then put a pit bull in every one of those homes.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

These issues are here because people still after all this time just don't get dogs and what it means to be a good responsible owner as well as what it means to have good dog etiquette (AKA common sense). Learning about breeds, learning how dogs psychologically work, learning how to train your dog, learning dog body language, maintain them, keep them healthy physically and mentally, not allowing dogs to meet unless the other person says it's okay, following the damn leash law... And on the other side of the fence not approaching a dog you don't know and petting them without asking, and teaching that manner to kids. If everyone practiced this, I guarantee you this world would be a better place for both dogs and people. Would there still be dog attack incidents? of course, they are animals and shit does happen, but there would be FAR far less.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

> Sure there's an underground world where a few thugs try to make a quick buck off of viscous dogs, but what about the last 20 pits YOU'VE SEEN PERSONALLY? Were they neglected and abused or in the care of those who loved them as family members? How are we classifying "macho idiots" these days? Are we going by lack of affection for their pets, criminal record, muscle and tattoo count, or just school district?


Let me think. I can't reliably recall the last 20 bull breeds I saw, but I can list the most recent encounters that I remember:

-A very nice show-bred American Bully. Well bred, very friendly, very loyal even as an adolescent. Owner was a hot rod guy who planned to breed and show.
-Intact male running off-leash near a busy road, next to a popular urban hiking trail. Owner and 4-year-old child were just walking around and not even paying attention to their pet.
-Countless dogs locked up in backyards I see every time I pass, at any hour. Dogs are barking like crazy, make aggressive sounds, and are usually filthy.
-A particular suburban yard dog who is very sweet and friendly to everyone. Friends who live next door say she gets junk thrown at her for barking. Yard looks like a junkyard, has rusted metal everywhere; much of it is hiding in tall grass. All owners do is feed her and yell at her.
-Off-leash dog near a busy road. Owners were having a birthday party with lots of kids running around. Dog stayed near the people and didn't venture into the road.
-Very pregnant, skittish mommy pit running loose in the streets. Covered in dirt, likely eats garbage and sleeps in the bushes in an empty lot nearby.
-Sweet, friendly puppy from a very loving home who escaped her yard. Clearly an indoor pet, but the house-sitters didn't care much about her and left her outside. Didn't even think to close the gate.
-Very old dog relaxing in the front yard of its house. Off-leash and no owner in sight.



All of these happened in lower-middle class, suburban neighborhoods with a fair amount of racial diversity. It's not good when the vast majority of pit bulls I see are being neglected or handled very irresponsibly.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RCloud said:


> OMG dude, there are NO rates! Everything out there that claims Pit Bulls have the "highest rates" on dog attacks and bite statistics is a load, because there was never an official study conducted, and the ones that do exist are biased crap based on unreliable, inaccurate media reports.


Even that is not even based on accurate breed identifications, because lets face it, not even AC or shelter staff always know what breed a dog is predominantly. I have paid attention to some of the dogs they call "pit mixes" and I m like ... what?


----------



## Eenypup (Mar 21, 2014)

Thanks, I think she is beautiful too 

But in NO way was I trying to associate poor dog ownership with "thugs" or anything like that. I know that pit type dogs being so popular, there are undoubtedly too many good or even great owners of them to count. I certainly don't dismiss that, and I see lots of seemingly well cared for bully breeds all the time! Including my own and my dad's! 

I certainly get where you're coming from because the anti-pit BSL crowd does love to cite that pits are popular amongst the "macho idiots", as you say. I just don't know if we can have an honest discussion and at the same time ignore that lots of people get these dogs because they look intimidating or cool and then neglect them. I know that's the case from personal encounters and because the 90% of dogs at our local shelters are pit types who were either seized from neglect or dropped off in bad shape. It's just a fact, and one that does not help the media portrayal of bully breeds at all.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

People don't take into account that pit bull type dogs are usually very energetic with a lot of drive/gameness/grit/ (there are those words again LOL) and they surprise a lot of people, esp when they are young and in their adolescence.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Oh god if the only irresponsible dog owners in the world were thugs and macho idiots, the world would be a better place. Sadly, the irresponsible are everywhere and everyone.
> 
> BSL does not and cannot work IMO because there is so much more to the problem of dog bites than the breed involved. Ban pit bulls, and I bet you a dollar that the number of bites, serious bites, maulings, or whatever word you want to use doesn't change at all. Countries and cities where BSL has been enacted are showing us that.
> 
> I would love to see a basic dog bite prevention class in every elementary school and every birthing/pregnancy class in this country. I'd bet you another dollar that would very, very substantially affect the number of serious bites that occur even if you then put a pit bull in every one of those homes.


So much this. I've seen the macho thug types with obviously well cared for and well mannered dogs and I've seen richy rich dog mommy neglect their dogs mentally and physically (dogs are not obese lawn ornaments!). I've also seen it switched with the thugs who just want testicles on leash and dog mommies who genuinely care for their pets. 

The vast majority of bites occur because a human was being stupid. Either the owner wasn't managing their dog or the other person wasn't using common sense.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

That study I linked back on page 10 did give the reasons for why most _fatal_ attacks happen:



> The researchers identified a striking co-occurrence of multiple, controllable factors: no able-bodied person being present to intervene (87.1%); the victim having no familiar relationship with the dog(s) (85.2%); the dog(s) owner failing to neuter/spay the dog(s)(84.4%); a victim’s compromised ability, whether based on age or physical condition, to manage their interactions with the dog(s) (77.4%); the owner keeping dog(s) as resident dog(s), rather than as family pet(s) (76.2%); the owner’s prior mismanagement of the dog(s) (37.5%); and the owner’s abuse or neglect of dog(s) (21.1%). Four or more of these factors were present in 80.5% of cases; breed was not one of those factors.


Victoria Stilwell summarized the study in a shorter, easier to read post on her blog; that's here.

It's almost all due to bad ownership and improper supervision, unsurprisingly. No one's done a study on the owners themselves, but I doubt they were all "macho idiots," just people who got in over their heads with dogs they couldn't train or control. 76% of the dogs who fatally mauled people weren't even pets. 37.5% of them had been involved in incidents before.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> That study I linked back on page 10 did give the reasons for why most _fatal_ attacks happen:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that makes up a good number of people who have dogs in the first place, a LOT of people are in over their heads :/


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pits are EXTREMELY tolerant... I have personally stitched up... Pits I have owned. As well as a number of pits I have not owned... In the field, that were hog cut, sans anything to numb the site. In the field.... I once did a GSP that got cut on something sharp... Took five people to hold the dog down. Done a couple of hounds.... Same thing,....... Hold em down with several men...... Every pit I have stitched, they lay there quietly..... No muzzle... No big deal...

I cannot imagine... And doubt I would try to suture an ACD... Or a Rottie for that matter.... If it would have to be a case that I had concern if I did not act, the dog might not make it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Crantastic said:


> That study I linked back on page 10 did give the reasons for why most _fatal_ attacks happen:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not a victoria fan... But... If you look at attacks on children... They are always alone with the dog...


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not a victoria fan... But... If you look at attacks on children... They are always alone with the dog...


Yep. Regardless of the breed of dog involved in the attack, all the cases have one thing in common, and that's that the child wasn't being watched by an adult.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Pits are EXTREMELY tolerant... I have personally stitched up... Pits I have owned. As well as a number of pits I have not owned... In the field, that were hog cut, sans anything to numb the site. In the field.... I once did a GSP that got cut on something sharp... Took five people to hold the dog down. Done a couple of hounds.... Same thing,....... Hold em down with several men...... Every pit I have stitched, they lay there quietly..... No muzzle... No big deal...
> 
> I cannot imagine... And doubt I would try to suture an ACD... Or a Rottie for that matter.... If it would have to be a case that I had concern if I did not act, the dog might not make it.


Ha! When Izze got snakebit, she was fine with me but in the back when they took her to treat her they had to muzzle her and it took four people to hold her down (due to the venom they didn't want to sedate her). She trusted me, I told them I could have restrained her by myself with little trouble .... but they wouldn't let me try


----------

