|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pit bulls suck� Is it in their genes? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Sounds like poor breeding for temperament and a bad choice of puppy for a pet.
quote: Out of curiosity, did anyone in your family take the dog to obedience classes as a puppy or work with it consistently at any time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hi Modulous:
Modulous writes: Since this is based on a "thought" experiment, I can safely claim that I "think" you are wrong. Basically what I am saying is that the pit bull fatalities would decrease more than the labrador's would if we take out the violent owner background.You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim, and I do believe that I do have some evidence to support mine. Look at the most recent report about the boy in San Francisco for example (sensational headlines...I know and I agree). Obviously, these dogs were socialized...they were the family pets. The boy loved them and had played with them in the past. Here’s a report from the San Francisco Chronicle:
"Attacks by pit bulls accounted for about a third of the 238 fatal dog attacks in the United States during a 20-year study, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pit bulls were blamed for killing 76 people, or 32 percent, during a study of dog attacks from 1979-1998, the study showed. Rottweilers were the second most deadly animal, reportedly killing 44 people, or 18.5 percent, during the same period." Now I agree this does not address in any way, ownership neglect. But do you really think that in a majority of the cases, the owners were violent people? I think the onus is on you to support that claim, not me.
Modulous writes: Admittedly, my sample size is small (=one), but the pit bull that attack my dog was socialized. He certainly did not appear to have been neglected or mistreated, and although his owner is, in my opinion, an idiot, the dog was "friendly". I base this on the fact that apparently, the night before, both dogs (did I mention before that two dogs were actually involved in the attack...the male put bull and a female pit bull mix of some sort) were running around the campground, interacting with numerous other people. (this is what I was told...neither my wife nor I were aware that the dogs were in the campgrounds or we would not have walked our dog there). Your original point of dog-dog attacks I have addressed. You'd need to show that pit bulls maintain any disposition they might have after a token amount of socialization. But I am correct in stating that they do show an innate aggressiveness towards other dogs. How about this, from the Missouri Pit Bull Rescue:
The American Pit Bull Terrier was developed to recognize other dogs as adversaries, and selectively bred for specific fighting abilities. They were also bred to be very friendly with people so they could be manageable in the pit. These characteristics are genetic and contrary to what people think, have little to do with how you raise the dog. While they naturally love people, Pit Bulls don't need to be trained to fight other dogs and cannot be trained not to fight." Or this (from the same site):
"In order to perform in the pit, Pit Bulls were bred for their endurance, heart, and never ending tenacity despite pain and exhaustion. ABPT fanciers call that trait "gameness" and for many it is the essential quality of the breed. Sadly, the APBT's gameness is the result of hundreds of years of a cruel practice called "gametesting". A gametest is when the breeding stock is tested via a nasty dog fight and only the dogs that don't quit are bred (if they survive). This terrible practice has produced dogs with unmatched determination and stamina, but also unfortunately, with an important predisposition for dog-aggression." How about from a Seattle based rescue group named Pit Bull Project:
"Pit Bulls offer wonderful companionship, are amazingly athletic, and have a terrific sense of humor. That said: We must never forget that pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs. Owners must understand their fighting heritage because it's critical to their success. Dog aggression is common and as with any trait, there are varying degrees." Perhaps the United Kennel Club:
"Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog." Training to prevent the dogs from attacking other dogs is a must, which is what I have been saying from the beginning. A lack of training, according to groups that are SUPPORTIVE of the breed, will result in a dog that instinctively attacks other dogs. So I guess now it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary. That is to say: what level of training to you consider to be a token amount?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
In post 28 1.61803 writes writes: Just so we're all on the same page, that is the question you asked in post 28. Do you know anyone personally that breeds any dogs at all? Just how much do you know about dogs besides what your personal fears and the media feed you? And here was my complete response:
Get off your high horse. What my personal fears tell me? Kiss my ass. When I was a Grad TA, one of my students was a German-short hair breeder. The owner of the stable where we keep our horse is also a breeder Boston Terriers, Pugs and couple other breeds as well. A very good friend did her graduate work looking at dog behavior and is currently working on her PhD with wolves I believe. My grad worked focused on animal behavior. And here’s your response to the above answer.
in post &43, 1.61803 writes writes: Did I not just simply answer your question? Oh.. I see you knew a breeder of German pointers and also a breeder of Bostons...(by the way owe some of they're genes to the Pitbull) and .. and.. you also knew a gal that studied dog behavior...ok. and you yourself studied animal behavior..and your point????This has to do with just what? I suppose this is a argument from authority now that you have such a vast amount of background knowlege in animal behavior and have friends that do as well. And you all sit around and discuss the evil pit bull I suppose and how the world would be a better place if we could all just ban everything we were afraid of. Ha..funny. I know, stay in academia and you will never have to worry about trying to use that knowlege on someone who knows better.Did you or did you not ask me if I personally knew any breeders? Did I claim any superior knowledge to you? If so, please point it out. Did I say I was an expert on pit bull breeders. If so please point it out. Hell, if anything I have claimed just the opposite numerous times in this thread. My point is that I wrote a response to a direct question asked by you. This has to do with behaving in a civil manner and answering a question addressed to me. Did I in any way imply an argument from authority? Did I say I have a vast amount of background knowledge in animal behavior? NoI answered the question the you asked. If you don’t expect answers to your questions, please let me know next time. If you don’t like the answers I provide, see if you can’t maybe explain your disagreement(s) in a more adult manner. Now, to answer you question in this post:
1.61803 writes: My excuse can only be: it must be that I'm a dumb ass, because I keep replying to you. I can't help myself though, it's a habit I have of trying to address statements that I feel are not true, and point out errors in your reasoning.
Because I am a smart ass...whats your excuse?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hello again!
Since this is based on a "thought" experiment, I can safely claim that I "think" you are wrong. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim, and I do believe that I do have some evidence to support mine... Its fine that you think I'm wrong. Unfortunately if I have no evidence, neither do you. However, I believe I do have evidence, even if it isn't rock solid. What do you think the average dogs for violent people to own are? I doubt the answer is a cocker spaniel or poodle...my source is not a study though, its just common sense and observation.
But do you really think that in a majority of the cases, the owners were violent people? No. I think that a disproportionate number of owners of 'attack' type dogs are violent. What the figures are I do not know, neither of us do. As a secondary point, these dogs are simply more capable of doing more damage than a spaniel. Whilst fatal attacks are rare, when an attack does occur its simply more likely to be fatal when the animal has the strength and resolve to finish the job. Strength and resolve are attributes of 'gameness'. Does make them a bad breed, does this make them a liability we should do without? Well, that's obviously a matter for debate.
But I am correct in stating that they do show an innate aggressiveness towards other dogs. I've never disputed that, in fact, I have said it myself in this very thread. How much of that innate aggressiveness remains after suitable socialization has yet to be fully established. I'm perfectly willing to concede on it, but not without seeing some data. I am totally open to the possibility that the canophobia (?) in pit bulls cannot be easily trained out...but I'm yet to be convinced.
Training to prevent the dogs from attacking other dogs is a must, which is what I have been saying from the beginning. A lack of training, according to groups that are SUPPORTIVE of the breed, will result in a dog that instinctively attacks other dogs. So I guess now it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary. That is to say: what level of training to you consider to be a token amount?
A token amount is some level of training which is comparable to the normal level of training required for other dogs. Maybe pit bulls require a little more training, and I've never said otherwise. Does that mean letting the animal grow up with another breed about the house, or simply walking them regularly with other dogs? I don't know, I'm not a pit bull expert. Is the extra training a significant endevour or is it merely trivial? Moving back to rodents, male mice have an inherent aggression towards other male mice not of the same litter. This goes above and beyond normal social hierarchy pecking order stuff. Such behaviour is known, and can be handled by a good owner. However, AFAIK the trait is deeply instinctual and it is a bad to house non-related male mice unless they have known each other since very young. Are pit bulls like this, or do they posess are controllable trait. To what extent is that trait controllable? Can it be eradicated? Can it be brought down to normal levels? How difficult is it? How much attention and time does it require?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Modulous:
It seems that we are in agreement on a number of issues. When it comes to our personal opinions, however, I will concede that mine has been biased.
Modulous writes: I agree with where you are going with thisbut that's not evidence. I supplied an actual account of a non-violent individual owning pit bull that was involved in a fatal attackthat’s evidence in support of my claim and against yours. What do you think the average dogs for violent people to own are?Here’s another report from the San Francisco Chronicle: A woman was walking her pit bull in the park when she removed the dog's leash, Gittens said. A mounted police sergeant called to the woman, telling her to put the dog's leash on, and it was then that the dog noticed the horse, according to Gittens. From Chicago Suburbs News - Chicago Tribune:
AURORA The family of an 11-year-old East Side boy says he is lucky to be alive today after being viciously mauled by his next-door neighbor's pit bull Sunday night. Would you consider this owner to be violent?Xavier Benavidez, a soon-to-be sixth-grader at Cowherd Middle School, suffered wounds to his face, head and chest in the attack, which occurred around 8 p.m. in the 400 block of Daywards Court. Police said the animal's owner, 54-year-old Orvil Wayne Cockriel, invited Xavier to play with the dog, a white pit bull named Popeye. As the boy approached, the dog lunged toward him and knocked him to the ground. From The Mercury News - Bay Area news, sports, business, entertainment, lifestyle and commentary:
The pit bull, which was described as a large, muscular unneutered dog named "Smokey," was staying at a neighbor's house while his owner, Blanca Galan, moved. Galan's 13-year-old daughter came over to walk Smokey and thought she had secured the dog when she left to go to the store, according to Lt. Roger Rude. I cannot be sure, but it would appear that this owner was not a violent person and that his dog had been socialized.But the dog escaped and went next door through an open backyard gate where it attacked Annette. Two 20-year-old men - Hector Precido and Jesus Ravas - heard the screams and ran to help when the saw the dog with its mouth locked onto the girl's face. Read the reports about fatal attacks by pit bulls, remove any that involve anything other than a normal family pet, compare that to similarly fatal attacks by other breeds and see who comes out on top. I still think it would be the pit bull. Hey, maybe this data is available in some fashion or another...I'll see what I can find. Certainly bad owners are far more likely to produce bad dogs, no matter the breed. But you did raise a valid point that I was going to get to myself, that being that the "result" of an attack by a pit bull is far more likely to have serious consequences than an attack by...say...a...a brittany (). Let me play a "thought experiment" myself. If pit bull breeding were banned World wide, the result would be the loss on that particular breed. Let’s say we did just that, and that it was a success.Here's my question: What, if any, would be the loss to human society without pit bulls? Keep in mind, I'm not advocating going out and killing pit bulls that exist right now...simply stop breeding them. When the monotypic representative dies...they're all gone. And we (human society) would be worse off in what way? This debate began with me stating that I felt pit bulls should be banned. Most people in support of them have tried to justify their position by claiming that pit bulls can be very social and loving animals. This I do not dispute. But the same can be said for hundreds(?) of other breeds as well, breeds that are less likely to inflict serious, and sometimes fatal, wounds if they do snap. I don’t so much care about the why of the snap. Rather, I’m more concerned with the results. Any dog can snap I guess, but as you mentioned, the results are not as often a fatality. Like it or not, over the last twenty years (well, up to 99 I guess), it has been the pit bull that has killed more people than any other breed. So back to one of the first questions I asked when I began this thread: Why, knowing the history of the dog, and the potentially serious results of an attack, would someone choose a pit bull as the family pet? If we eliminate people who buy or breed them to be vicious (another thought experiment), leaving us with only good owners...I still would ask: why choose a pit bull? What do you get from a pit bull that I do not get from my brittany?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I agree with where you are going with thisbut that's not evidence. I supplied an actual account of a non-violent individual owning pit bull that was involved in a fatal attackthat’s evidence in support of my claim and against yours. Here’s another report from the San Francisco Chronicle: I never made the claim that a non-violent individual who owns a pit bull will never see its animal fatally attack someone or something, so your evidence doesn't go against my claim. My claim is that if we take a look at the attack dog statistics for fatal killings, remove the dogs that were abused, the cases where the human was directly responsible, remove the ones where the owner was known to be anti-social...and then we did the same procedure with labradors, we would find that the pit bull stats would be reduced by a larger number than the labradors. It is evidence, anecdotal (like yours) but based on experience of many people. As I previously conceded, the evidence is not rock solid proof. Here is an interesting study that links behaviour problems in owners with behaviour problems with dogs. Our mutual source tells us how 25% of fatal attacks are chained dogs. This could indicate that how the dog is kept is more important than the breed. A great majority of dogs in attacks were male (93%) (2000-2001 when there 28 fatal dog attacks at the hands of a single dog (41 total)) and had not been fixed (81%). Perhaps this is a more important than breed? I also note, by looking around there are generally only 12-25 fatal dog attacks per year in the US. That means, at worst, that 5 people die as a result of pit bull attacks every year. Hardly a big problem...more people die during circumcision. Of course this assumes that all pit bull (type dogs) are correctly identified. This website does a good job in illustrating the problem with that.
Here's my question: What, if any, would be the loss to human society without pit bulls? Well, critically speaking tens maybe hundreds of millions of dollars trying to enforce the law. That said, what would be the loss to human society if we banned all dogs but labradors and poodles? Basically we lose diversity, and those who enjoy a pit bull's company would be unhappy.
This debate began with me stating that I felt pit bulls should be banned. Banning won't work. Indeed, it has been tried, in Cincinnati, and it failed. You need to justify the cost of banning something which is of almost insignificant consequence. You need to explain why this is worth it. You'll need to demonstrate that once we normalise the statistics they are still a significant problem. Remember, you are trying to convince me that banning these breeds is the way forward. I don't care for pit bulls, and you have yet to convince me. You'll need to do more work than just showing me newspaper clippings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Modulous:
Modulous writes: Gotcha...sorry for misunderstanding. Even if this were true, it stills ignores the point that you brought up. Why are pit bull attacks usually so bad? Because the damned dogs are so good at it...better, I'd say, than most.
and then we did the same procedure with labradors, we would find that the pit bull stats would be reduced by a larger number than the labradors. Modulous writes: Why? I've always hated this type of excuse. But first, remember, this was a "thought experiment" that I deemed successful. Once the dogs are gone, their gone...enforcement is a non-issue. But I know where you're coming from and I still do not accept it as a valid reason, but that's probably a topic for another discussion.
Well, critically speaking tens maybe hundreds of millions of dollars trying to enforce the law. Modulous writes: Sorry, but newspaper clippings are about all we can get. I don't know of any scientific studies conducted to test either of our hypothesis...it's hard to get volunteers for something like that. Something about being killed during the study really turns people off to the idea...now what I mean .
Remember, you are trying to convince me that banning these breeds is the way forward. I don't care for pit bulls, and you have yet to convince me. You'll need to do more work than just showing me newspaper clippings. Modulous writes: It appears that we are never going to agree on this. Tell ya what though: First, you tell me what evidence it would take to convince you to ban the breed. Then I'll pretend I'm a creationist and go out and selectively choose some things and make up the rest to prove my point. How's that sound?
You need to explain why this is worth it. You'll need to demonstrate that once we normalise the statistics they are still a significant problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Gotcha...sorry for misunderstanding. Even if this were true, it stills ignores the point that you brought up. Why are pit bull attacks usually so bad? Because the damned dogs are so good at it...better, I'd say, than most. Yes, it does ignore the other point. I categorized them as two seperate issues. That is, the effect that the background of the pit bull can have on its liability to attack and the second point of, how dangerous are they once an attack is under way. I've happily admitted throughout that even if attack rates where fairly similar across the board, fatalities would be higher in bull dogs, GSDs et al since they are more effective attackers.
Why? I've always hated this type of excuse That law enforcement costs money? Its not an excuse but a fact of life. Lets say that we spend $100,000,000 on banning pit bulls. Could that money have been used to save more than 10 people per year? I think there are better ways to spend large sums of money.
Once the dogs are gone, their gone...enforcement is a non-issue. True, but selective breeding is a wonderful thing. If people want these dogs, they'll re-breed them...they probably won't get the same dog, but they'll probably get something close enough. And to stop this getting so out of hand we are back at square 1, continous enforcement would be needed. Money money money. Besides if you wanted to ban the bulldog (from which the pit bull was bred), you'd have to go to war with Britain
. I don't know of any scientific studies conducted to test either of our hypothesis...it's hard to get volunteers for something like that. Something about being killed during the study really turns people off to the idea...now what I mean Heh. Volunteers aren't needed, just the cooperation of the police force to take notes of certain statistics when dealing with canine attacks.
Tell ya what though: First, you tell me what evidence it would take to convince you to ban the breed. 1. Evidence that they pose a risk that is equal to other things I believe should be banned. 2. That banning them would be cost effective. 3. That banning them is a remotely feasable idea, and won't lead to a 'if pit bulls are outlawed only outlaws will have pit bulls' type scenario This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 30-June-2005 07:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Modulous writes: Which again begs the question: Why get one? I've happily admitted throughout that even if attack rates where fairly similar across the board, fatalities would be higher in bull dogs, GSDs et al since they are more effective attackers.Just so you understand, I do live in the real World and I know that from a realistic standpoint, we'll probably never ban these dogs. I personally believe that they make a bad choice as the family pet, but here in the good Ole U. S. of A., stupid people are free to make stupid choices. I also do believe that, by and large, what you do in your own home should be nobody else's concern (surprise surpise 1.61803, if you're reading this). But by the same token, when things run amok, there need to be consequences. But of course, it's a little to late for the victim by then, isn't it?. Modulous writes: Better yet then, let's just pack em all on a boat and send em across the Pond. "Hey Charles Knight, we're shipping a butt-load of pit bulls your way!" Problem solved.
Besides if you wanted to ban the bulldog (from which the pit bull was bred), you'd have to go to war with Britain Modulous writes: Oh dear God and in the name of everything Holy, don't let 1.61803 read this or he'll jump all over you shit! Ban, Ban, Ban!...what a couple of bastards we are .
1. Evidence that they pose a risk that is equal to other things I believe should be banned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hehehe.
It is all about where lines are drawn, which of course is unique for us all really. When does an animal become to much of a liability to sanely keep. Naturally hippos are off the scale, as are deadly venemous creatures...but dogs with the potential to cause major injury should they choose ? The debate continues. And hey, we'll have no American Staffordshires (HAH! That's like American Cheddar, or American Football) over in God's green land thank you very much
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Modulous writes: But yet many people have them as "pets".
as are deadly venemous creatures Modulous writes: Jeez, I swear I'm about as bright as a 2 watt bulb...I never even noticed that you're "one of those types" too. Lucky we came along and saved your ass during Dubya Dubya Two eh (sorry, that was uncalled for). And hey, we'll have no American Staffordshires (HAH! That's like American Cheddar, or American Football) over in God's green land thank you very much Sadly, though, and it pains me greatly to admit this...I find myself in agreement with you about both American Cheddar and American Football. Bicycle Road Racing, man...that's where it's at!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 772 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Out of curiosity, did anyone in your family take the dog to obedience classes as a puppy or work with it consistently at any time? We never took her to obedience school, but we did work with her fairly consistently when she was young. My Dad loves dogs and gave her a lot of attention. We also owned a black lab. He obeyed very well, and was very good tempered... sometimes our cat would sleep on top of him. I'm sure if we had put more time into training her, she might have been more obedient, but for some reason she had a natural hatred for all other animals and a fear of any strangers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The thing is, what's a pitbull or pitbul-type dog? An English Bulldog has a bull-baiting heritage. What about Boxers? Or Mastiffs of various sorts? You are talking really about dozens of breeds here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HKidd234  Suspended Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 1 From: johnstown,oh,us Joined: |
well you know what pitbulls rock and you suck because
pitbulls have no control over what is happing to them and everybody hates them.except me.and the pit who killed your fuckin who ever get over it,thing was probbaly doing something to the pitbull so im glad that the pit attacked who the fuck ever the only thing that should be banned is dicks who hate pitbulls. Includin YOU. YOUR AN USELESS FUCKIN DICK!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I know I shouldn't comment on this; I should just let the Admins handle this. But I have to say this:
Was it really necessary to resurrect a thread that's been dead for two and a half years just to vent your anger like this? If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey. Haven't you always wanted a monkey? -- The Barenaked Ladies
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024