No to the first (as far as pitbulls are concerned) and the second has nothing to do with pitbulls’ aggression towards humans.
I see the point; however, I believe the picture of a pit bull in this collection of photos is of a puppy, not a full grown dog, and is therefore misleading.
Here is a picture of full grown pitbulls from a breeder’s site. They look almost nothing like the pit bull in the link because they are full grown and the picture in the link is of a puppy. If you have to mislead and cheat to make a point, you have made no point at all.
I agree with you. All male dogs which are not specifically used by authorized breeders for breeding purposes should be neutered. From your link:
“•Approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered.”
I don’t actually know that we know that. Are there any studies that actually bother to identify the dogs genetically and study the animal’s heritage? A breed of dog is a dog that is the product of many generations of selective and controlled breeding to emphasize some characteristics and deemphasize others. Anything else is just canis lupus familiaris and difficult to distinguish in any way, and you’re just talking about physical characteristics that are shared by dozens of breeds.
It’s been awhile, but the last time I looked into the literature all the reports were based on some human looking at a dog and “classifying it” as a pit bull. Unless you know its parentage or do a genetic test you simply aren’t talking about real dog breeds or real identification of dog breeds at that point.
Right, and as LHoD’s cite shows these studies always talk about “pit bull-type” dogs, which means “dogs we have no idea whether or not they were actually created by selected breeding or if they’re just mutts, that share traits similar to the three AKC breeds recognized as pit bulls.” The problem with that definition is it can encompass some dozens of actual breeds as well as millions of mutts that may have no association at all with the three AKC breeds commonly referred to as pit bulls.
I think you folks are missing the point about pit bull attacks. It’s not that the dog is more aggressive it’s that when the dog attacks it doesn’t stop in a timely manner. This is why they represent a higher percentage of fatalities versus other dogs.
So you can take all your excuses such as: “it’s the owner’s fault” and “you can’t identify the dog” arguments to your grave when one of these dogs attacks. If you see one loose it is far more likely to kill you than say a Lab or a beagle. Again, it’s not the level of aggression, it’s the likelihood that if it does it will not stop. This is what kills people.
Because dog fighting breeders are operating outside the bounds of the law and the official registries there is generally no way to either know the original blood line of the animals that started their operation or if they are following the breed standard. If the original animals were from some other breed or mixed breeds, or they aren’t following the breed standard in their successive breeding generations then we’re talking about mutts.
Dogs can definitely be bred to be aggressive. IME (and I know a lot of breeders, was raised by parents who bred champion show dogs etc) the most dangerous dogs as bred to the breed standard are dogs bred to guard livestock followed by sled dogs. The reasons if one think about it make sense, the old breeds bred for the blood sports were all bred to be non-aggressive to their handlers. Household guard dogs were bred so that they could be trained to recognize friend from foe and thus, while more dangerous than dogs not bred for guarding at all they tended (when properly bred/raised) to be safe and not prone to attacking random people. Livestock guard dogs and sled dogs were mostly raised as “tools” and to operate without a lot of human interaction (especially livestock guard dogs), sled dogs obviously get a lot of time close to human from pulling sled but not in a way that either requires or desires they do anything but be really good at pulling a sled.
The dogs produced for modern illegal bloodsports are produced by un-professional breeders that probably know nothing of any breed histories or how bloodsport dogs should be raised. Now, I think the age of blood sports being legal and popular is happily behind us, but back when it was done the people involved in it generally were professionals who bred professionally. Today, because it attracts common criminals due to its illegality you have people that really have no idea how to breed for characteristics or behavior. So they probably just round up a few studs and bitches that “look like pit bulls” and then breed away, destroying the dogs that aren’t mean as hell and mistreating the ones that are to make them even meaner. This produces a very dangerous animal but to call it one of the three AKC breeds commonly called pit bulls is like calling a Golden Retriever a German Shepherd.
No, it doesn’t appear to be a puppy, its head is just turned. The distinctive APBT head is only distinctive when looking at it straight on. But even if they had picked a better picture of an APBT I think almost no random police officer, bite victim or etc could easily distinguish between an APBT, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, Cane Corso and any number of other breeds. Now, I think from a selection of top bred dogs I could distinguish an APBT from a Cane Corso or other similar breeds if I knew I was dealing with all 100% pure blood, professionally bred dogs (because I’d know that no mutts were in the group.) But outside of such a controlled situation (in the real world), I know that mutts can strongly resemble any number of purebred dog breeds, and that not all breeders do as good as job of others at conforming to the breed standard. So some dogs even if properly bred may be hard to tell apart from other breeds.
That’s why no veterinarian or any other person professionally involved with animals would ever claim they could make a definitive identification just based on a visual exam. And if the dog’s parentage can’t be found out it becomes basically impossible to know anything about the dog, even with genetic testing it wouldn’t be certain.
I didn’t ask about pit bulls, though. I’m trying single-step debugging here :), trying to figure out exactly where our disagreement is; if you don’t mind answering only what I ask, it might help us figure it out. (At this point I’m wondering if I’ll need to ask you about the theory of Darwinian natural selection, but I’m hoping that’s not the point of disagreement).
Again, the questions:
“Mutt” is no more a scientific term than “pit bull.” We’re talking cultural significance and cultural identifiers here, which are related to breeding, but there’s no scientific bright line between a pit bull and a non-pit-bull.
I don’t know. I know that a lot of what they’re breading isn’t the desire to get small animals, but rather selectively breeding to improve the physical characteristics that make the job easier for the dog. Pointers are bred for sense if smell and a short coat to keep them from being snagged on briars. Labs are large enough to bring back bigger birds, have a coat that keeps them warm in the water and big paws that help them swim better. I have no idea if they attemp to breed attitude, though I would bet some do.
Wow, I’m surprised, and I’m glad I’m doing this one step at a time.
Okay, next question: do you believe that there are many different attitudes that people have tried to breed into dogs?
No idea.
This is a ridiculous fucking conversation.
No, but both are understood terms amongst dog breeders. A mutt is just a dog, as would exist normally and as do exist normally when left to their own devices. They breed with each other with little real inhibition and create copious amounts of puppies that continue on over and over again til you end up with hundreds of millions of dogs. They’re still a domesticated animal, but like all animals there will be great variability from one to the other. About the only way you can really predict anything about their behavior is by actually observing and interacting with the specific dog.
Pit bull is a term, that generally refers to three specific AKC breeds. If you want to argue that it’s a term that “means all dogs that look like those breeds, or are aggressive” that’s fine, but then I question why you’re using that term instead of just the term “dog.” Because the reason these discussion ever focus on any one breed is because of “breed laws” and insurance stipulations prohibiting certain breeds, rental agreements prohibiting certain breeds and etc. Do you think breed bans actually make any sense if instead of referring to the three AKC breeds, you’re talking about pit bulls as just a catch all term for a large, vaguely defined dog population that share a few superficial physical likenesses and have high levels of aggression?
There’s no evidence to support what you’re saying.
Basically LHoD, you’re in agreement with me. If you understand there is no meaning to the term “pit bull” then you understand it’s meaningless to try and talk about whether pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds. Because you’re comparing one thing (“a cultural construct”) to a specific dog breed, which isn’t just a “cultural construct” but is instead a lineage of dogs bred over many generations to have a set of physical and behavioral characteristics. I’ll replace your use of the term pit bull with the term “illegal fighting dogs” and thus say, “Illegal fighting dogs (IFDs) are dangerous because they are bred for aggression, but IFDs have nothing to do with AKC recognized pit bull breeds like the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Further style, while IFDs are probably involved in many violent attacks, since there is no reliable way you can really easily distinguish an IFD from any AKC breeds or by sight distinguish AKCs breeds from one another any statistics based on reported dog breeds in biting incidents are essentially worthless and not worthy of serious consideration due to inherent flaws in the methodology.”
Accidental duplicate post.
Okay. If your knowledge of dog breeding is such that you don’t even know about the millennia-long history of humans breeding for specific attitudes and behaviors, I’m afraid I agree that the conversation is ridiculous. It’d be like me arguing with someone over the implications of string theory, when I don’t know anything about string theory.
You’d do well to learn more about the history of dog breeding before expressing any more opinions on the subject.
I dispute this, as seen by all the posts showing that most people do NOT using the term “pit bull” in the same way that the AKC uses the terms. People use the term to refer to a variety of dogs, and the AKC has no special authority to govern how the term is used.
My point is that a significant number (probably a minority) of the dogs that are called pit bulls by their owners, whether those dogs conform to AKC guidelines or not, are selected and bred and raised for an aggressive temperament.