NajaNivea/Michael Vick/boar Hunting/Pitbulls

Where to begin ?

First off, although I wished the pit bull breed and all other mastiff types where phased out of the canine population, I can still respect the arguments of the pitbull apologists.

But NajaNivea is a different breed.

I’ll give him the credit for pointing out that larger mastiff breeds get a bye, but he doesn’t realize their number just don’t match the numbers of the breeds under the umbrella of the official and unofficial pit bull designation. He doesn’t understand that when the layman talks pit bulls, he’s most often talking mastiff offshoots. Their size varies . But their morphology is recognizable regardless of size. His arguments focus on the particular officially recognized breeds to point out that the rarer larger mastiff breeds are just as dangerous or more so as officially designated American staffordshire Terriers/American Pit Bull Terriers.

No argument there.

What bugs my ass is learning for the first time about a blood sport south of the Mason Dixon line.

I’m talking about hunting wild boar(razorbacks) with pitbulls and/or other mastiffs.

Well it isn’t even as simple as that. We learn from the unapologetic NajaNivea that when these catch dogs have got their boar by the head they commonly CRUSH the skull of the boar.

(I wonder how one observes a cracked skull covered in fur unless it is crushed. Nothing special about the bite strength of a mastiff/molloser offshoot. :rolleyes: )

Never mind that NajaNivea has admitted to us that the practise exists soley to deflect from the pitbull to the English bulldog while conveniently ignoring the fact that the PItbull is a very popular breed in this endeavour.

The most serious problem here is the unapologetic position by someone who is very near the top of the organization that promotes this horrendous blood sport.

“You have no idea” :rolleyes:

It isn’t just the boar who gets run down with a pitbull hung on to its ear while other pits struggle to clamp down on their head and crush. Fuck, what a way to go. What human induced cruelty. What about the pitbull itself.

Even some guiding outfits have qualms about hunting boar with dogs

-bolding mine

Need I say more? NajaNivea is on the national board of directors responsible for this outrage. This “sport”, this blood sport, is cruel to both prey and animal predator, simply for the amusement of a human. Boar hunting does not require dogs.

If Michael Vick got a couple of years in prison for facilitating dog fighting, what do you thing a director of the national organization that promotes wild boar hunting deserves ?

I got nothin’ against boar hunting, but you should do it your own damned self, not have dogs take the risk for you. (I’m not really all that concerned about the boar, although I don’t want it to suffer unnecessarily - that boar really will kill you if it gets the chance, and it has the power and the ability.) Pits range from 22 to 110 lbs. Naja is bending the truth to suit his fabrications.

Nothing, if it’s legal.

If it is, it shouldn’t be.

I can see the arguements for Pit Bulls being like hand guns:

  1. They are needed for home defense.
  2. They are needed for boar hunting.
  3. They are needed for defense against boars.

I thought this Pit thread was coming. Good for you. NajaNivea is simply an apologist. He’s got religion and there’s no penetrating it. But I did find this gem to be almost worth it:

I guess I’ve “seen” the inside of the Oval Office, the Great Wall of China, the Hope Diamond, and Elle McPherson naked. This changes everything.

gonzomax, we’ve been over this before – you’ve been in the threads where I’ve posted the breed standards for UKC and other clubs – you know that the actual breed standard is 30-60 pounds for a male (one club goes as high as 65). You’ve been pointed to the historical pages that discuss why the larger dogs were unsuitable and the bulldogs were crossed with smaller terriers to produce the dogs that eventually became the American Pit Bull Terriers.

At this point, to claim otherwise, as you do here, is to willfully spread ignorance on a board dedicated to its eradication. It makes you look…bad.

Please stop it and apologize.

You keep doing this bullshit–thinking that merely presenting your side of an argument, however silly, means that you’ve won the argument. That’s not how the world works. Your argument above is absurd nonsense, for example: our language has no governing authority, and there’s nobody empowered to say precisely what is meant by the term “pit bull,” and so our only recourse is to look at how people actually use the word.

Thankfully, people use it in a consistent fashion. When someone is talking about a pit bull, they’re never talking about a recipe for creamed corn; they’re never talking about a male bovine in a hole, they’re never talking about a tiny dog covered in long hairlike fur. They’re talking about a type of mastiff; they’re discussing a particular cluster of appearance and breed traits, and a particular specimen may have more or fewer of these traits, but below a certain threshhold of these traits nobody will call a certain specimen a pit bull.

And you know that.

Nonetheless, I won’t order you to stop with the nonsense argument you just made; nor will I ask you to apologize for it; nor will I even insist that, now that we’ve been over this argument, I’ve clearly won it.

Because that’s not how arguments work. If you wish to defend a dumbshit prescriptivist position, why, that’s your right, and no apology necessary.

This pitting was long overdue, but the latest news about her (?) involvement in a blood sport certainly casts a new light on her motives for defending pit bulls; I wonder whether she sees them as something of a bulwark against attacks on her own blood sport.

I’m not taking one poster’s side or the other, I’m just asking (because I want to hear peoples’ opinions) - is hunting boars (or foxes, or hares) with dogs really an immoral act, since wolves hunt and kill these animals in the wild? It seems to me that since these vicious dogs have the instinct to chase and kill game, deep within their genes, it’s not inherently “wrong” to have them do this. The cruelty, in this case, is simply the cruelty of the wilderness, which has existed long before humans even came onto the scene.

i don’t understand your question in the first sentence. Or, rather, I do understand it, but only because it contains a false equivalence in it (IMO): it equates “in the wild” with “morally acceptable.”

There are plenty of things that happen in the wild that avoid immorality only because the entities causing these events are not capable of making moral judgments. When lightning strikes a mountain goat and barbecues it, when a botworm eats a baby mouse from the inside out, when my infant daughter smacks me across the face, none of them are acting immorally: none of them can make moral judgments. But if I fricaseed some random goat for no good reason, or if I tortured a mouse to death, or if I smacked my baby girl across the face, I’d be acting immorally, because I’m capable of making moral judgments.

Likewise with blood sports. It’s true that wild animals who hunt do so (by definition) savagely, and invariably with no concern for the suffering caused by their hunting. Wild animals cannot have such a concern.

But human beings can. And if a human being capable of making moral judgments engineers events such that a case of suffering occurs where such suffering would not otherwise have occurred, then that human being has moral responsibility for that suffering. Sometimes it may be acceptable: I believe that killing animals for food is morally acceptable, despite the suffering caused by farming animals, for a variety of reasons.

Blood sports are different: the amount of suffering caused is far out of proportion to the good caused by this suffering.

Even if you disagree with either part of my calculus (believing that meat is morally unacceptable, or that blood sports are acceptable), the existence of suffering in nature is, I believe, irrelevant: morality is only sensibly discussed in the context of moral subjects, that is, entities capable of adjusting their actions according to a moral compass.

Would you also oppose people feeding live rodents to pet snakes?

As I understand it, many snakes will die if they don’t get live food; in these cases, the alternative (the death of the snake) is enough to make the cruelty (the death of the mice), if not desirable, at least defensible. When a snake can live off of pinkies or nuked mice, I think that’s the moral choice to make: someone who feeds live mice to the snake just for the fun of watching it is not behaving in a moral fashion, I believe, inasmuch as they’re engineering unnecessary suffering purely for their own entertainment.

Someone who hunts boars with dogs because they need the meat and they have no other way to get it might be behaving morally; historically, boar hunting with dogs may have been the best choice. I do not believe that’s the case today; today I believe it is a blood sport, and not moral.

Again, though, the existence of suffering in cases that don’t involve humans has no bearing over the morality of suffering in cases that do involve humans.

Actually, NajaNivea is a female.

Your own cite shows that pit bulls above 65 pounds are not pit bulls, but mixes that are part pit bull. And if a dog is only part pit bull, it’s rather dishonest to then say it’s dangerous because it’s a pit bull, because it’s not.

If you’re sick enough to wanna kill animals for fun, you should do it yourself and with only a small knife. Anything else is pussy, and if the boar kills you, well…good. He didn’t wake up this morning looking for trouble.

Lots of things are natural that we regard as cruel if done deliberately by human beings. It’s natural for animals to starve to death, but if you force an animal to starve to death you’d be rightly regarded as a cruel bastard.

As others hav already said, I don’t see a problem with hunting. But at least have the decency to try to kill the animal painlessly. Be a man. Get out there, just you and your weapon, and shoot the quarry. If you can’t catch the boar without using dogs, lose some fucking weight and be quicker.

American Pit Bulls do not exist in nature, and I presume (though I may be wrong) that no non-domesticated canine would attempt to bring down a healthy 300+ lb. boar, even in packs.

Time to educate you again. When you breed 2 purebreds you get a bunch of puppies. When they mature enough ,you decide if they are showable. You check the color, the confirmation and size. Some of the puppies will be too big to show.Some might be too small. They are over or under the dog show breed standards. That does not mean it is not a pit bull. What that means is is is not a dog show pit. It is still a pit bull.
Some people like the big ones and try to breed them with other big pits. They are producing pits that are not dog show standard pits. But they are pit bulls.

I’m not sure. Packs of wolves can kill a moose, which is much larger than a boar, so why not?

I wonder how many Dopers have actually met a pit bull? Honestly, they are huge sweeties. Sure, they’re strong, but there are few more loving animals on the planet. I would guess you have to work hard to make them aggressive, as temperment-wise, they love to play and beg for attention. They often look intimidating, but that’s about it in the hands of anything above a sadistic dog-tormentor.