I don’t see what evolution and natural selection have to do with this discussion. The domestic dog is not a natural species. It didn’t evolve, there was no natural selection, it was adapted. All the various breeds of domestic dogs were manipulated by man. They were bred for certain physical features and traits. Some were bred to be helpful to hunters by retrieving, pointing or flushing prey, some were bred to guard sheep (and be dangerous to predators), some were bred to guard homes (and be dangerous to people with ill intent), some were bred to fight bulls, some were bred to fight lions, some were bred just to look cute and some were bred to fight other dogs. The pit bull and similar breeds were bred to fight other dogs but they need to be able to be handled and controlled by people. [/QUOTE/
Keep in mind also that the instincts of many dogs varies, because so many dogs have been bred to be pets instead of for their original purpose. How many GSDs still have strong working instincts? How many terriers retain their ratting instincts?
American Staffordshires, to name one breed of “pit bull,” are commonly bred for show, and conscientious breeders are breeding for an even temperament as well. Bull Terriers are also bred for show and temperament. Staffordshire Terriers are bred for show and temperament. Do you have to be careful around these dogs? Certainly. They’re (say it with me) dogs.
Sigh. Sorry for not coming back to the thread. I should have remembered that this topic doesn’t tend to get dropped.
My dog is fixed. Thanks for the sharp eyes. That’s what I get for not coming back.
In my jurisdiction, any pit bull born after August 2005 is “illegal” and any vet who sees one is obliged to report it. All “illegal” dogs will be put down. Therefore, anyone who is breeding pit bulls in this jurisdiction, now, is (a) owning dogs illegally (since all pit bulls must be fixed) and (b) breeding dogs illegally (which cannot provide proper veterinary care for).
I do not know why someone is breeding lots of pit bulls in my neighbourhood, but considering that none of them can get proper vet care, and the owners are choosing to risk having their dogs confiscated and put down, I am not filled with warm fuzzies as to the motivations and responsibility of the people who breed and obtain these dogs, especially considering how many sweet and lovely and perfectly legal (but also fixed) pit bulls are available for adoption through rescue groups.
When I combine this evidence with what I observe about the folks who greedily ask if my dog is fixed (i.e. they are awfully sketchy, and they want my dog because he looks like a fucking UFC fighter), I am overall not confident about the safety of the dogs. That is what I meant by “breeding dangerous dogs.” Dangerous dogs are more likely to be the illegally and irresponsibly bred ones.
I covered that before with my reference to police dogs, military dogs, etc. I might add that anyone who uses a dog as a weapon, except in cases of self defense, is not a responsible pet owner.
But, for for the sake of the argument, I will amend the statement. Here goes.
*
99.9% of the “vicious dog” attacks that occur happen when the dog is not under the owner’s control. *
This underscores my main point, which is that the dog is not to blame, and most certainly, the breed is not to blame.
Laughable. All breeds of dog are dangerous at some level, they’re animals for christs sake. the training they receive is what makes them aggressive and even mean. You could coax the same kind of behavior from a Cocker Spaniel as you can from a Rottweiler by beating him daily and feeding him bloody meat and gun powder.
Arg, this again. Look, some breeds of dogs ARE more dangerous than others. Small, weak dogs with squashed faces and asthmatic breathing aren’t very dangerous, large, athletic, muscular dogs are more dangerous.
But have you seen the temprement of some of those toy dogs? Behavior that would get a large dog destroyed is laughed off by the owners of these rat-pirahnas. The only reason these vermin aren’t put to sleep is because they are small and weak and can’t do much damage when they bite.
But breed-specific bans are just stupid. Banning dangerous dogs is smart. But being a particular breed doesn’t make a dog dangerous. If someone is raising fighting dogs those dogs are dangerous, it doesn’t matter what their breed is, pit bull, rottweiler, mastiff, or pekingese.
Yes, I meant to add something about most purebreds of these breeds are rarely used for their original purpose anymore, with the exception of some hunting and herding dogs. But they do still have the physical traits they were bred for even if not the temperament. Show dogs are bred not only for these defining physical characteristics but for a good temperament as well. So responsible breeders are much less likely to produce an aggressive dog as long as it’s properly raised. I won’t say never because you never know what circumstances in life will shape an animal’s temperament and something could happen, like abuse, to create an aggressive dog.
Yeah, I wasn’t going to come back but I saw something to agree with and clarify my post.
but under his definition, it will always be true -since if the dog gets out of the dog’s owner, than it obviously ‘wasn’t under the owners control’. I think you’re claiming (and I also believe rightfully so), that even on a leash, many large dogs can get away from their owners (not do, but can). Even with a large, strong owner, even with a highly trained dog, yes, I believe that it’s possible that the dog could get away from it’s owner.
Well, until you define “breed of dog,” it’s not comparable in the least. My favorite pit bull is a Dogo/Labrador mix. Aside form those with AKC papers, what is the definition of “Pit Bull?”
Other than that, I have nothing to say except DMX, and other celebrity types who should know better but don’t, pisses me off. All that money they have and not only do they not do good with it, they do terrible things like this. :mad:
Good Lord! Did you even read the cite? The owners went to prison for failing to control their animals. One was disbarred. One is still potentially facing a charge of second degree murder. I’d say that’s a few standard deviations to the right of “irresponsible,” and puts the blame squarely where it belongs, on the shoulders of the owners, *not *the dogs.
If these folks are what you call responsible owners I am beginning to understand your confusion. Do you know anything at all about their story? You might want to educate yourself before you go off half cocked again.
I have amended the “never” to 99.9%, so you can get that crumb out of your throat and stop choking on it.