Then you’re clearly completely ignorant of the subject, and have failed to even read this thread. It has been pointed out, multiple times, that fighting dogs are often, if not always, bred to be easy to handle. Dog fighters want dogs that respond well to humans.
Try again, this time with less ignorance and dodging.
I would agree with this with the caveat that such a dog could very well be another but similar non-APBT mix: a Staffordshire, say, or other molosser-type.
Another and very important caveat: dogs badly raised to fight are much more likely to attack. If some mean doofus bullies and abuses a dog into being savage in general, that is very likely to be a human-aggressive dog. And there are a lot of such mean doofi around.
Final caveat: Pit Bull mix or mix of some other breed that looks like a Pit Bull.
Nice try, this has never been proved or even supported, and in fact the opposite. In fact, at the shelter where I volunteer, pit bulls who have been used for fighting are considered not adoptable.
You know, just referring to earlier s posts where you said the. Same thing does not really support your point.
I suppose your post is you cite?
Much like the claim that you’re completely unable to back up? You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Oooh. How convincing.
Are you joking, or trying to win the Most Hypocritical Statement award?
I think you guys are talking past each other, and I think this relates to what I said in my previous post.
Yes, traditional fighting-dog breeds were bred with care to be easy to handle and non-aggressive to humans.
Dogs that are illicitly trained and used for fighting nowadays, however, now that dogfighting is illegal and typically linked with other illegal and dangerous activities, are highly likely to be aggressive to humans.
Those two statements are not mutually contradictory.
According to the ASPCA, this is false. They claim that there is supporting research.
Again, as I cited earlier from the ASPCA:
It may be that you interpreted the part about “individuals outside the traditional dogfighting culture” as people who don’t fight dogs. Based on my work with ASPCA documents and videos (which I can’t cite, because I no longer work at the shelter where I accessed them), the ASPCA talks about traditional dogfighters as opposed to street dogfighters.
Traditional dogfighters see themselves as part of a noble and ancient tradition, and often have matches with formalized rules. Street dogfighters are dudes who project their badassery through having mean dogs, and they have impromptu street-level fights.
When I taught my classes on animal cruelty, and I talked with high schoolers who had witnessed dog fights, about half the kids had been to a traditional fight, organized in a barn or empty field somewhere, with sometimes hundreds of people coming, and lots of money changing hands. The other half who’d witnessed them described street fights: they’d seen guys on their street meet and have a quick fight that other people gathered around and that ended before anyone could call the cops.
My interpretation of that cite is that at least some of the “individuals outside the traditional dogfighting culture” they’re talking about are these street-level fighters.
Edit: also, this sort of breeding is on its surface going to be one of the easiest traits to breed into dogs. Dogs are pack animals that arguably are still the same species as wolves. Breeding a dog to emphasize its aggression to anyone outside of its pack is just breeding it back to its wolfish instincts–very different from trying to breed a dog that wants to go grab a small moving thing like a stick or a ball and bring it back to the owner.
From here:
Thanks for the cite–interesting! I’d like to see the research they’re looking at, though. It’s certainly counterintuitive that behavior toward other dogs would in no way be correlated with behavior toward people, and I’m wondering if the research defines the terms in ways slightly different from how I’d define them.
Please point out to me a post where I went “totally nuts”.
Please point out to me a post where I demonstrated that I am “defiantly” ignorant. I came into this thread admitting up front that I am ignorant on many aspects of the topic. I admitted that I used to be “anti pit bull” and that I have since been educated and know better now. I said that in my very first post in this thread. I have thanked kimstu for explaining to me where I might be not considering some points.
I expressed the opinion that we shouldn’t use “pit bills are too hard to identify” as an argument. Kimstu made good points to support why the argument is valid, and I accept that.
Kimstu is too kind, though. He supported your post even though your post wasn’t saying the same thing that he was. You said,
*“The point is, it’s completely unfair to say any dog that bites someone is a pitbull (which is EXACTLY what the media does) and then complain because “pitbulls” are always biting people. Can you get that?”
*
This didn’t look accurate to me, especially in Great Debates, which I rarely visit because I think one has to be on their serious business to post in here. Being on your serious biz means not making statements that aren’t accurate. So I called you on it. Yes, many reporters have gotten it wrong when it comes to identifying the dogs, but that doesn’t equal what you posted. I called you on it and you responded with that patronizing phrase “Can you get that”?
I don’t know anyone who says that phrase in response to a simple calm post unless I they are saying it in a sharp, patronizing tone. So I called you on that too.
Now, I see you are saying that the post wasn’t even directed at me. If that’s what you mean by this…
“…since you went totally nuts at a post not even directed at you”…
then, my apologies. I thought for sure the post was directed at me, since it was right beneath mine.
So, I called you on it, using the very common tactic of turning the phrase back on you, using italics to emphasize that I caught the meaning of your condescending little sound bite.
You somehow took that to mean that I was having strong feelings, or emotions or whatever you said, and invoked the word ‘hysterical’ in response to my aptly used “shrill”. I used shrill because it is the PERFECT description of the piercing tone one hears when someone patronizes them with phrases like, “don’t you get it?” “what’s not to understand?” “Can you get it through your skull?” or things like that. Shrill.
I wasn’t surprised to see you finally end up just dropping the “gendered insult” accusation, though. Classy move. I mean, that ends the discussion right? Nothing more I can say once I’ve been branded with the scarlet letter “M” for misogynistic gendered insults.
From the same page you cited:
Just like I said:
Fantastic. That has not much to do with the point I was addressing, and you haven’t supported any of your positions with any kind of a cite.
Sorry, I missed your last paragraph for some reason, which is the point I was addressing. Sorry about that. I’ll get to it when my company leaves.
Okay, no hurry; I don’t think you and I are really in disagreement anyway. You are arguing that properly trained and socialized fighting dogs are emphatically not human-aggressive, and I agree with you.
With the caveat that, as your own cite acknowledges, there’s a metric shitload of so-called “fighting dogs” out there that are not being properly trained and socialized; quite the reverse, in fact.
“Pit Bulls often attract the worst kind of dog owners—people who are only interested in these dogs for fighting or protection. While Pit Bulls were once considered especially non-aggressive to people, their reputation has changed, thanks to unscrupulous breeders and irresponsible owners. And because the Pit Bull population has increased so rapidly, shelters now struggle to deal with an overflow of image-plagued, hard-to-place dogs…
Pit Bulls that were not used for fighting were considered ideal family pets—affectionate, loyal and gentle with children. Serious problems started when these dogs gained the attention of people looking for a macho dog—and to meet their demands, unscrupulous and uncaring breeders are producing puppies that were not only aggressive to other dogs, but also to people.”
Now it’s true that at one time, Pit Bulls were used by professionals in the dog ring. Those dogs were trained to be gentle and obedient towards humans, killers towards other dogs.
BUT, the modern “thug” with a fighting pit just trains the dog to be mean. The dogs are horribly mistreated, treatment that nearly amounts to torture.
Look, apparently you are a Pit Bull fan, and I am fine with that. We’re really on the same side. Pit Bulls- properly socialized and raised- make great pets. I even found a rescue, one that had been BRED to be a fighting dog but never trained, and found a home for him with some friends. he’s a great dog. Has to be watched around strange dogs, mind you, can’t be off his leash at dog parks- but he is gentle and playful with the cats and the Spaniel. Not to mention the kids.
I am against breed specific legislation. I am pro banning breeding, and enforcing neutering of all dog, except by registered breeders.
But, before you adopt a Pit that has been trained to fight, you have to know what you are doing and what you’re getting into. Every site- even pro-Pit sites say that. Those dogs are dangerous if you don’t know what you are doing.
So, altho we’re on the same side, i can’t go along with the “no danger at all” boosterism. Like with any breed, owners need to know what they are getting into. Hell- adopt a Siberian or Australian sheepdog? I tell people to expect a super-active dog that may be smarter than you. One that will escape if he wants to. One that needs a lot of play time, and can’t just be left in the yard all day. But am I saying they are horrible dogs? No- but you have to know what to expect.
With a non-fighting Pit you have to socialize it around other dogs carefully. I think that Pits who have been trained for fighting need an expert, not a naif.
I understand Pit Bull fans have to put up with a lot of “shoot on sight” crap. But the best defense is the truth, not whitewash.
I don’t have trouble believing that some trainers are being less discriminate in training their fighting dogs. I’m just having a hard time believing that the majority, or even a significant number, of attacks that are attributed to pit bulls are actually from dogs that have been taught to fight. I’m not seeing any evidence of it, at all.
That’s pretty far away from “Dogs raised to fight are much more likely to attack”, full stop.
I am going to take the liberty of recapping some of the positions here:
Statement A: “The breed ‘Pit Bull’ - owned by owners of pets and bred to official standards - is dangerous and should be banned.” Few if any defenders here, even though the op started out in that space. Most accept that the actual pets are of no significant risk. Non-zero but not huge. Some of those who defend the breed will still recognize that the rare Pit Bull that gets spooked and attacks can and will cause more damage more quickly than say my whippet … even if the frequency of such happening is extremly low.
Statement B: “There are scum out there who are attracted to the scary looking pit bull look and who obtain dogs of that build, sometimes being more attracted to an aggressive personality in a dog as well. These people are often the worst sort of owners for many reasons and create dangerous dogs, many of which have the pit bull look and some unknown number of whom may have some pit bull heritage.” Pretty broad agreement?
Statement C: “It is fair and useful to call those dogs of statement B pit bulls.” Some substantial disagreement.
Statement D: “Pit bulls, as defined in statement C, are dangerous animals.” Hard to discuss that one if you are stuck on objecting to the so defined part, but sure, muscular dogs owned by bad owners who prize aggressive characteristics are dangerous animals; if that is how “pit bull” is defined then they are, by definition, dangerous.
Statement E: “All breeding should be outlawed except by registered breeders; all others should be neutered, especially males.” One major proponant of that position. I personally have no argument against it.
Fair recap?
I’d say that’s a very fair summary.
My probably useless two cents is that arguing about how “well-raised” pit bulls are gentle and loveable and “tortured by street fighters” pit bulls are the bad dangerous ones doesn’t coincide with my experience with dogs. Dogs are who they are, temperamentally, when they are born. Their early social experiences shape their responses in later life, but only to a degree.
Many dogs, often breeds or mixes of breeds which have been selected for generations to be overwhelmingly trusting and kind, will remain that way no matter what awful things happen to them. Others, bred to be guardians (hence, innately wary of strangers and will react offensively i.e. forwardly, to scare off a perceived threat) only need a triggering incident to set them off – no matter how carefully they’ve been socialized.
The seminal research on innate temperament was done in the 1950’s I think, I used to have the book. I’ll look it up if anyone is interested.
My point being, pit bull type breeds are what they are because of breeding, not training. “Bad owners” are attracted to the possibilities of bringing out what is innate in the dog. Otherwise they’d use any biggish dog for their purposes.