They were bred to be dog aggressive but not human aggressive. I believe that training can overcome breeding.
This is the part that I think a lot of the public doesn’t realize. I learned that here on this board some years ago, and whenever I tell someone, they are like, “ohhhhh…”
Nice recap, DSeid. I’m in the “call those statement-B dogs something else” camp, and I’ve suggested the term “muscle dogs”.
I have no opinion on statement E about dog breeding, because I really don’t know anything about the current state of dog propagation.
But that’s exactly what they do. Over the years, people looking for a badass “muscle dog” have gravitated toward different breeds, as changes in trendiness and legislation favor one over another.
Victorian novels indicate that the intimidating “muscle dog” of choice in that era was the mastiff, for example. More recently, we’ve seen muscle-dog trends that include German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, and now Pit Bulls. Prior to that the collie was sometimes valued as a tough fighting dog, which seems weird to generations brought up on old Lassie reruns. The current fashion in badass dogs is eventually going to turn from the Pit Bull to something else.
Not bad. However, I am pretty sure the number of B that has “some pit bull heritage” is close to 100%., at least currently.
As far as A, “the actual pets are of no significant risk”- to humans. Even registered pet Pit Bulls must be carefully socialized and watched around other dogs. Mind you, this can be said of several other breeds, Malamutes for example. If some idiot yappy dog “challenges” a malamute, and doesn’t immediately show submissive behavior, it can go very bad for them. *
E is the important part.
- One of my friends has a HUGE Malamute. She was out walking it one day when a couple of thug types came by with their scarred up pit. The thugs began making comments, and ‘somehow” :rolleyes:their Pit got loose. It got a big mouthful of husky hair, then the 200# Malamute proceeded to whup Pit bull ass.
I agree with everything in this statement, with the possible exception of my not being clear on the statistical danger presented by registered pit bulls to other dogs. I don’t know if there are any stats on that; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the stats favor registered pit bulls over dogs at large.
Sure.
If we’re willing to distinguish between rottweilers and pit bulls and dobermans at this level (all of whom tend toward short hair, large size, and obvious musculature), sure. “That build” means more than just muscled dogs.
Folks who disagree with that statement perplex me. Do these folks think that pit bulls didn’t exist as a breed before the AKC formed? Do they think that no dog breeds existed before the kennel clubs came along? If a rural farm has a litter of dogs he calls hound dogs, is that farmer totally off-base because his dogs aren’t registered?
The strict requirements for a dog’s papers before it’s considered a member of the pit bull breed seems to me like an ad hoc requirement thrown up to avoid charges of “dangerous dog” being leveled at the breed. It doesn’t seem to me like a very logical position.
The only disagreement I’d throw up against that statement is that a qualifier is necessary: “It is fair and useful IN MANY CONTEXTS to call those dogs of statement B pit bulls.” It’s not necessarily fair and useful to use this label in a legal context, for example.
Again, I love me some weasel words, so I’d add something like “disproportionately” or “often.”
Note that’s different from the definition in statement C (or B): previously you defined these dogs as muscular dogs with a pit bull look. I want to keep that in there in case your (generally excellent) recap statements become grist for the mill of debate; nobody is saying that a rottweiler owned by a dude who wants a scary dog is actually a pit bull.
I’m pretty okay with that one, as long as the breeding license is based on animal care measures and not on membership in a club (when I worked for the humane society about 10 years ago, the AKC had a ridiculously low number of inspectors for all its facilities and could not, pardon the pun, act as a watchdog).
Overall, excellent effeort, and I appreciate it!
Half of this I don’t actually understand. You seem really upset that I used the word “exactly” when I meant something more like “frequently” or “often” or “usually”; you’re right. I used used hyperbole and GD probably isn’t the place for it.
Let me try again:
As to the rest of it, I have no interest in arguing with you. The misidentification of dogs by the media has been well-cited in this thread; either you accept the facts or you don’t.
The fact that you don’t understand what I wrote, despite me taking pains to recap everything as plainly and simply as I could has to be my fault. I am taking full responsibility for failing to communicate well in this thread.
Also, you thinking I am very upset, emotional, totally nuts, hysterical…all of these words that you have used to describe my posts in this thread is further evidence that I have failed badly at communicating what I came in here to communicate.
So, I am extending my sincere apologies. There is a reason I don’t make it a habit to post in GD.
Oops, for some reason my ‘latest post’ search didn’t work. Never mind!
You mean, like German Shepherds or Doberman Pinschers or Rottweilers?*
All breeds that at some point in recent history have been called “the most dangerous dog breed” and been legislated against, at the same time that Pit Bulls were considered perfectly appropriate family pets?
All breeds that, for some period, were THE popular dog for thugs to own? Said dogs being bred and trained by thugs for aggressive behavior and said behaviour causing public outcry due to all of the attacks they were responsible for?
Those same breeds that, before and since their ‘15 minutes of fame’, have been considered perfectly appropriate family pets?
Those “biggish dogs”?
*These are the ones I personally remember in my lifetime. There may have been others.
Cool. Ditto; I apologize as well.
No. It hasn’t been. True, the media does seem to pay extra attention to stories about a “Pit Bull attack” as opposed to a generic dog bite. But that’s because the media panders to it’s audience. Sme thing happens when a little blonde girl goes missing as opposed to a black male child of the same age. Doesn’t mean the media “misidentifies” the kids, just that they report more the stories their audiences seem to want to hear about. (and the ASPA cite does show that other dog attacks are reported, it’s just that Pit Bull attacks are given greater coverage)
In fact there’s *no cites at all *(that the media has been misidentifying dogs), as opposed this being “well cited”. Are you sure you’re reading the same thread or you know what a “cite” is? A “cite” is not just a poster posting his opinion, fyi. Even if he does so several times. Or over & over & over.
Yes, there is difficulty IDing a dog as to breed, no doubt. Again there is little doubt, that most dogs called “Pit Bulls” are really "Pit Bull mixes’ and some may even have more other breed than Pit Bull. But I have seen nothing to indicate that a German Shepherd bite is being called a “pit bull attack”.
Thus there’s no evidence at all that the media has been misidentifying dogs in significant numbers. Unless of course, one takes the position that if it’s not a “AKC Registered American Pit Bull Terrier “ it’s not a “Pit Bull” which is a ludicrous position to hold.
You mean, like there are no cites at all when the media reports on the breed of a dog? No experts are consulted, it’s usually eyewitness reports. No genetic testing, no papers.
The CDC has documented why they think breed identification is reported incorrectly, which is a damn good cite.
I don’t feel like re-linking to the rest.
In an informal context, I don’t care what someone calls something. But if we’re going to start talking about ordinances or other methods of restricting who can own what dogs, I want to know how we’re determining which dogs should be so restricted and if there’s evidence to support the validity of that criteria.
Why not at least read that link? As I posted "True, the media does seem to pay extra attention to stories about a “Pit Bull attack” as opposed to a generic dog bite. But that’s because the media panders to it’s audience. Sme thing happens when a little blonde girl goes missing as opposed to a black male child of the same age. Doesn’t mean the media “misidentifies” the kids, just that they report more the stories their audiences seem to want to hear about. (and the ASPA cite does show that other dog attacks are reported, it’s just that Pit Bull attacks are given greater coverage)
Papers? It is to laff.
“Papers?, we don’t need no stinking papers”.
No, what the CDC sais is that there are difficulties with breed identification. That is entirely different than “they think breed identification is reported incorrectly”. They also said “*Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.” *
Where does it say “they think breed identification is reported incorrectly”?
Who here has suggested this? Several have suggested that ALL breeds of ALL dogs be neutered (except those owned by registered breeders)(same say just the males) and that no breeding be allowed except by registered breeders. Is there a poster here that has suggested breed-specific legislation? Breed specific legislation is stupid.
If there is no accurate way to correctly identify a breed (ie difficulties with breed identification), then some identification must be incorrect. Also, the above does not represent everything they’ve said on the subject.
AH, *since there difficulties with breed identification *(conceded),
thus
there is no accurate way to correctly identify a breed , :dubious:
thereby
then some identification must be incorrect, :dubious:
**then follows **
The misidentification of dogs by the media has been well-cited in this thread:rolleyes:
Wow, that chain of “logic” has some mighty weak links.
This is absurd. If you want to claim that breeds are correctly identified in dog attacks, then you need to provide a methodology that was used to determine such. It is not my job to disprove your claim, it is your job to prove it. I have seen no evidence that breed identification is based on any reliable data.