I’m not sure MacTech started this as an argument thread, more as a neato fun thread and in that spirit here are my beasts.
Trogdor
It’s his christmas hat.
His paw trick
I thought I had pictures of Chloe on photobucket but i guess not. I will have to add some of her to the thread later.
Yeah, there’s a serious case of thread-drift here, lets get back on track and drop the arguments, there are other threads for the “Pits Gooood/Pits Baaaad!” squabbling
My last word on this thread (I feel so misunderstood) is that owning a dog is a big responsibility that many fail at and poorly raised big dogs are dangerous to a different degree than poorly trained medium or small dogs. “Pits” aren’t “bad” but they require a different level of awareness from their owners same as Rotties, Huskies, Dobies, Chows, Sheperds etc do. Anthropomorphism (Not MYYY dog) by unaware dog du jour owners leads to bit kids and worse too often…
The OP painted a pretty pitbull picture and the first thing that came to mind was that if I was there (BIG, UNFAMILIAR and EXCITABLE dog) I’d be keeping my distance. I’ve seen dogs turn on a dime.
The pitbull video on youtube, Pit Bull Blues by John Shipe, is great though. I forwarded that to a ton of appreciative pit people.
I learned a thing or 2 reading this thread.
It does. Right. Thanks.
Y’all do realize that “these dogs are dangerous too” is poor defense, right? Every appartment dweller killed by a Presa Canario does not revitalize a pit victim. The fact is pits (and other dogs) have been bred to be aggressive. As to all the other also dangerous dogs, do something about them to. I.e., if a dog is both large and prone to attack (animal or human) what are they doing in shelters where any old chump can get one? This should be intuitive.
And most of the drug dealers, gang-bangers and thugs are not buying Presas or Cane Corsos. Please. I live in an in-town neighborhood in Atlanta. I am very familiar with what the dog of choice is. Think: Bad Newz Kennels.
I don’t have a problem with some folks (most folks like the pit-apologists in this thread) owning pits. I don’t expect that their dogs will roam off-leash or be in a siutation to otherwise inflict damage on the unsuspecting. Nonetheless, I will not board my dogs with pits (fortunately our boarder separates by breed and size and personality tests) or Rotts or German Shephards.
On a related note: I think German Shephards are gorgeous. I do not own one because I do not have the time, ability or desire to be a good owner of this sort of dog though.
Not to humans.
le sigh
Convince me otherwise, then. Show me that pits have been bred to be aggressive to humans.
I first came into this thread to comment on what I felt to be a dismissive tone regarding a pit attack on another dog. I have not waivered in including lethal dog-dog attacks in my objection to “casual” pit ownership. Just look at the post you responded to
So the apartment dwellers you referred to in the post I quoted were not humans?
They are irrelevant to the question of the dangers posed by a pit. That’s the point. Worse damage inflicted by another dog does not undo the damage inflicted bya pit. This is pretty straightforward.
Why in the world would anyone think that damage done by one breed to humans has anything at all to do with damage done by another breed to animals? The whole concept is nonsense.
Sure it is, and it’s certainly pervasive nonsense. The problem is, many of the folks to whom this seems like “common sense” have little to no functional knowledge of the subject, and even less desire whatsoever to explore the topic in any depth. To them, aggression is aggression, and dog fighting as a, I don’t know, concept is so repellent that it’s easy to mentally conflate that with any range of horrifying, anti-social behaviors.
You mean, all dogs, regardless of breeding background? Because surely you’ve bothered to read the CDC and AVMA reports on the topic, right?
I don’t mean this to sound rude, but do you actually… know much about canine behavior, or working-dog history? I’m very interested to know what you imagine makes a dog “prone to attack”. I’m curious if you have any functional idea of what that means, or if you’re just going on gut instinct with the dogs you think you know are dangerous, because historically they’ve been hoisted on the same “dangerous dog” pike.
I’m also still waiting for any even… remotely plausible answers to any of the three questions I posed repeatedly. I suspect I’ll be waiting for a long while.
Most of the time, it doesn’t much matter what stupid urban legends people buy into, but this one… this one is particularly insidious. It might not seem so on the surface, but the end result of the vilification of a particular breed of dog is that people forget to be cautious about all others. Somehow, people like you imagine that a fluffy, blue-eyed, 50lb husky couldn’t possibly be dangerous. And their own family pet, a cocker spaniel? An adorable, squishy little thing that could never hurt anyone. Hundreds of thousands of kids are physically and emotionally scarred, and a handful die every year because parents think their kids are safe with any dog that’s not a demonic bull breed, that avoiding blocky-headed dogs is the ultimate dog-bite panacea.
With respect to the OP and the rest of the participants in the thread who have actually bothered to read, consider, and respond to the posts here, I’ll simply link to something I wrote in the last discussion, and leave it at that. Otherwise, I’ll happily invite you, whole bean, to continue the discussion in an appropriate debate thread… though your unwillingness to actually engage with any depth on the topic makes that eventuality appear highly unlikely.
Oh, stop backpedaling! You keep trying to use violence against dogs as evidence of violence against humans, but step away from it every time you get called on it. None of that has dissuaded you from constantly returning to that well every 10 posts or so.
This is simply false. I responded with cites of pit bull violence to humans when I inferred a request for such infromation from a poorly worded post of another.
Backpedalling:
Selective breeding for dogs with tendencies for aggression toward other animals certainly qualifies as making said dog more prone to attack other dogs. Do you dispute that some (more than a few) pit lines have been bred to select for aggression toward other dogs? (Please remeMber: the tendencies of any other breed to be violent toward other animals or people is irrelevant to this question).
The answer could easily be gleaned from what I’ve posted thus far, but if you need me to spell it out for you, here goes:
Does it matter, if the complained behavoir is violence toward other dogs? Remember, that’s what I came in here about. My cite to the incidence of pit violence toward humans was simply offered in response to someone’s statement that twenty incidence of pit misidentification had been reported, where was the eviende of pit violence toward humans. I am fine with my opinion of pits being supported only by their breed’s violent tendency toward other animals.
It doesn’t. This is the “there are other (more) dangerous dogs too” argument. It is a very weak (that’s charitable) argument. The greater danger posed by one dog does not lessen the dange rposed by another.
This question is moot, but just so you don’t carry on about me not answering your questions, I’ll tell you why. It is the breeding history. The breed’s history of violence toward other animals (a product of its dog-fighting past) at the very least makes it dangerous to other dogs. As stated above, that’s enough.
[quote=“NajaNivea, post:112, topic:518225”]
It might not seem so on the surface, but the end result of the vilification of a particular breed of dog is that people forget to be cautious about all others. Somehow, people like you imagine that a fluffy, blue-eyed, 50lb husky couldn’t possibly be dangerous. And their own family pet, a cocker spaniel? An adorable, squishy little thing that could never hurt anyone. Hundreds of thousands of kids are physically and emotionally scarred, and a handful die every year because parents think their kids are safe with any dog that’s not a demonic bull breed, that avoiding blocky-headed dogs is the ultimate dog-bite panacea.
[QUOTE]
This is silly. Moreover, there is no reason why someon can’t be wary of both fighitng dogs and animals in general.
seriously, at least try to keep up
There could be genocidal dogs out there and it would have no bearing on the risks a animnal aggresive pit poses to other dogs.
My first post is in this thread is clearly directed to pit violence toward other dogs. This is indisputable. I also addressed the issue of pit misidentification. **Munch **post the following
which I interpet as a challenge to provide documentation of (at least one) pit attack on a human. I do so.
It’s funny now that Munch is the one trying to “call me out” by suggesting that I’m going to the pit-aggression-toward-human well when I did so to simply respond to his post. This is the same poster who’s previously indicated an inability to distinguish between seperate issues:
Well, we’re seriously off the rails at this point. Either way, your post #116 clears a lot up - thanks for finally answering Naja’s questions.
No - you didn’t “address” pit misidentification. You expressed serious doubt that it existed, which is why I posted the link to 20 such instances, and which is why most of this thread has degenerated into a “not only are pits not human aggressive, but there’s an extremely good chance that any media report of a pit-human attack was misidentification - see this quick ‘identify the pit’ internet test” tangent.
Either way, I think we’re finally clearing up the confusion.
I can see how it could be read that way. I do not doubt misidentification exists on some level. I doubt that it exists in the extreme that some claim, but this is only a doubt - the sort of healthy skepticism most here posess when faced with oft repeated rarely substantiated claims. Maybe the misdeintifcation is worse. Maybe there are people report a King Charles Spaniel (snappy little fucks) bite as a pit attack.
At the same time, I would think pit lineage might not be the predominant lineage yet still predispose a dog toward such aggression. This does not require a “one drop” test, as someone earlier tried to force on me.