If you’re just going to lie to them, how are they supposed to find out?
Well, after reading her clarification I have to agree with you. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Not my problem.
Thanks for that, and yes, I’m being a bit of an asshole about this one thing, refusing to educate people when I’m trying to mind my own business and walk my dog.
We can’t all be awesome all the time.
We shouldn’t purposefully make the problem worse, either.
It will be if they ban Pit Bulls and include your dogs.
Already a problem where there’s an additional license fee for keeping a pit bull, and proving you don’t have one costs even more.
Pit bull, Staffordshire Bull, American Staffordshire, American Bulldog, are all variations on a theme, and there is no particular reason to make hard and fast distinctions between them if you are, say, a dog trainer. They are closely related and in many ways are only loosely distinguishable by size. Closed stud book registries like the AKC build impervious genetic walls between gene pools based on things like color, length of hair, size, but these don’t reflect more organic gene pools based on the dog’s purpose, in this case, short-haired medium to large sized guard dog with a background in the sport of dog fighting.
The general public can usually only distinguish somewhere between five to ten breeds, those most popular at the time, out of the hundred-odd available in the U.S. I have a working type blue merle Australian Shepherd, who doesn’t have any white on him like the show dogs nearly always do. Most people can’t figure out what he is, because of that. Does that make them stupid?
Are pitbulls supposed to be good guard dogs? Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers, yes, but I always heard pits are particularly not well-suited for this task. Temperament aside, they’re just not particularly big dogs, and would not even crack my top ten of dogs I’d choose for guarding duties.
Shepherds are natural guard dogs. I’m not sure about Dobermans without training. Rotts I can’t speak to. But the pits work as a pre-emptive measure by letting people in the hood know you have one. I’ve known some that aren’t big barkers, that along with alertness are the primary qualifications for a guard dog.
But that’s more a watch dog you’re describing rather than a guard dog. (And it seems I happen to have one that isn’t one of the big barkers.)
“Guard dog” is a very general term, it means different things to different people. Some would only call those breeds which are typically trained for protection work (police, military, private companies) “guard dogs”. Other people consider a dog which is territorial, will protect that territory by biting, and is big enough to stop an intruder, to be a guard dog. Some would just call that dog a lawsuit waiting to happen.
“Watch dog” generally simply refers to a dog which is alert and will bark when someone encroaches on the property. Any halfway awake dog can do this.
Yeah, but some are better than others. My cousin’s Staffordshire bull terrier wouldn’t bark for shit. Utterly useless in that department. My pit barks sometimes, sometimes not when someone is at the door. There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to when he barks. Granted, it’s only a sample of two. I’ve often wondered if either of those two dogs would do anything if an intruder tried to get in. I certainly wouldn’t trust my pit to protect me in the event of danger, but who knows? Hopefully, I’ll never need to find out.
My dog only barks when someone is at the door sometimes. I tell her she’s a shitty guard dog because I don’t have a doorbell and rely on her barking to let me know someone’s at the door. She whines a bit and then delightedly licks whomever comes through the door.
The only time she barks (reliably) is when she’s on leash and someone comes at us too fast for her. Ride up on me on a bike, you’ll get a big WOOF in your face. Little kid runs at us to “pet the pretty dog”? Yeah, that kid isn’t getting anywhere near us, because big girl is already barking and pawing at the ground, telling the kid to back off. (And I’m right there saying, “No, you can’t pet her, kids scare her, sorry!”) She will put herself between me and whatever/whomever has made her feel threatened, so I trust her if someone makes a move to hurt me, she would probably try to tear their arm off. But she’s good about giving a warning bark, which I don’t correct because I don’t want to turn off the early warning system.
Malcolm Gladwell did an article on statistics, pitbulls and profiling which I found rather interesting.
Lost track of this thread. Yes, I was referring to a watch dog. I would only call a trained attack dog a guard dog. Without training it would do no more, and possibly less than a watch dog. And I don’t approve of training dogs to be attack dogs.
The logic of the statement “group a (i.e. biting dogs, criminals) consists mostly of people from group b (i.e. pitbulls and rottweilers, minorities) therefore most members of group b are members of group a” has been proven false over and over. Most recently in the context of racial/cultural/national prejudice.
To understand the falsity, compare the size of group a (biting dogs, criminals) with the size of group b (pittbulls, minorities). They’re completely different orders of magnitude.
I understand your argument and agree with it. However, I wasn’t saying that all pit bulls are dangerous, merely that they appear to be significantly more apt, as a population, to be involved in very serious bite incidents, than most other breeds. See the difference?
If 4% of all dog bites are fatal, but 3% of all fatal attacks are by pit bulls, it still means that 96% of all dog bites aren’t fatal, and says nothing about what breeds bite the most. I am making up the statistics here but they are not way out of line either.
My own moderately educated opinion, as previously stated, is that pit bulls are rather hard to stir to anger, as a breed, but are unusually dangerous, once they are.