Should Pitbulls Be Forcefully Bred Out or Put Down?

[Camicon]

Mistreatment of a dog that is mentally equivalent to a small child should be met with similar punishment.

No, it shouldn't.

Your logic being what, exactly?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Aggressive dogs aren't a problem. I fully support a person having a dog that's aggressive towards strangers or hostile intruders. So long as it's responsibly kept and managed. It's when it hurts a person that we have a problem.

tf do you think is the end result of a dog that's aggressive towards strangers?

Depends on what you mean by "aggressiveness".

Barking can be aggressive. And my dogs, indeed, are aggressive. But we're not sure how reliable they are at biting someone who trespasses because we've never let that be a situation. So they are for the most part untested dogs at the aggressiveness that counts in your mind, and it is likely they will do nothing to a trespasser because they rely on us to respond to their barks in a quick manner, again I could be wrong, but we've never had that tested either, thankfully.

[Conserative Morality]

Which is not due to pit bulls being behaviourally different, it's due to them being physically different.

Dog breeds exhibit average behavioral differences Y/N

Behavior differences includes such things as what we would generally recognize as 'personality traits', such a sociability, shyness, etc. Y/N

Dog breeds bred for the purpose of fighting other dogs are likely to exhibit, on average, behavioral traits that assist them in that purpose because that's the way artificial selection works Y/N

The same yappy, jumpy, generally "irritating" behaviour by, say, a mini schnauzer, would be seen as threatening, charging, generally "aggressive" behaviour by a rottie.

It's not that large breeds are more likely to be poorly trained, it's that poorly trained large dogs stick in our minds far more than poorly trained small dogs. It's confirmation bias.

Poorly trained large dogs are more noticeable which makes us think that large dogs are more difficult to train, and then their greater visibility reinforces our incorrect conclusion.

Actually, I see most large dogs are well-trained, and most small dogs as poorly-trained because people think 'irritating' behavior is cute on the little shits.

Still has nothing to do with the overall problem of Pit Bulls.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh yes, by all means, ignore the rest of the post and miss the point.

Considering that the rest of your point has nothing to do with my argument, or as far as I can tell, anyone else's argument on here? Why shouldn't I ignore it?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I put the 1-in-3 number there for a reason. I don't think most other people are morons. Just a good percentage. And you've said the same thing in the past, so I don't know why you're getting your panties in a twist about this.

My panties are completely untwisted here, darlin'. You're the one arguing hard and angry-sounding, you put it out there, so you're getting responses. One would almost think this were *gasp* a discussion forum or some shit, god forbid, the way people are carrying on here. The nerve.

You also clearly missed the sarcasm in that first bit - the way you're arguing your points, the things you're bringing up, would better apply to the people rather than the innocent animals. That's what I was getting at there, and that's what you're missing.

Should folks want to introduce more mellow to the breed, go for it. But I seriously do not believe for a moment that the fact that some animals are bred for certain qualities means they will all have those qualities regardless of environment and training, and will be a danger on account. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly now, there are other far more likely to bite or harm sorts of animals out there, but they aren't seen as a 'threat' because of size, and a bad reputation due to human abuse, bad press who thrive on drama, and misguided fear. And it would be a huge injustice to lay down some stupid law over the entire vast and varied breed on account of those things.

Hopefully you can set your own panties in order now, and stop allowing yourself to get so wound up by other people's opinions here. Jebus H Hyskos, that's all they are, after all.

[Araraukar]

Admittedly my dogs are barking dogs. We've trained them to bark. But we just are not sure we can rely on the chow lab to tear a chunk of leg off of someone if someone trespasses. Mostly because we've never been in that situation. But we usually are out there in a flash as soon as our dogs start barking, so they never have the opportunity to become more aggressive towards strangers. They know that if they bark, we as their owners are going to protect both them and ourselves, so they just worry about barking.

Sounds like what you've actually trained them to know is that when they bark, you come running, and probably show affection to them. That's #1 reason why many dogs bark endlessly when their owners aren't present.

[Neutraligon]

Which is not due to pit bulls being behaviourally different, it's due to them being physically different.

Dog breeds exhibit average behavioral differences Y/N

According to this (posted before in this thread)

"However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: "The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed." While breed is a factor, the impact of other factors relating to the individual animal (such as training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) prevent breed from having significant predictive value in its own right. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials."

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Liter ... ntion.aspx

Not in aggressiveness.

[Camicon]

Which is not due to pit bulls being behaviourally different, it's due to them being physically different.

Dog breeds exhibit average behavioral differences Y/N

Yes. Those differences are dwarfed by the behavioural differences that exist between particular dogs within one breed.

Behavior differences includes such things as what we would generally recognize as 'personality traits', such a sociability, shyness, etc. Y/N

Yes. Those behavioural differences are dwarfed by proper training and socialization.

Dog breeds bred for the purpose of fighting other dogs are likely to exhibit, on average, behavioral traits that assist them in that purpose because that's the way artificial selection works Y/N

No. Because the way that people interact with dogs has a far larger effect on how dogs behave than the general traits of their breed.

The same yappy, jumpy, generally "irritating" behaviour by, say, a mini schnauzer, would be seen as threatening, charging, generally "aggressive" behaviour by a rottie.

It's not that large breeds are more likely to be poorly trained, it's that poorly trained large dogs stick in our minds far more than poorly trained small dogs. It's confirmation bias.

Poorly trained large dogs are more noticeable which makes us think that large dogs are more difficult to train, and then their greater visibility reinforces our incorrect conclusion.

Actually, I see most large dogs are well-trained, and most small dogs as poorly-trained because people think 'irritating' behavior is cute on the little shits.

Still has nothing to do with the overall problem of Pit Bulls.

The "overall problem" - greatly exaggerated by a sensationalist media - with pit bulls is not because of any behavioural problem inherent in pit bulls. It's because of the few shitty people who are training and socializing them.

[Pasong Tirad]

Oh yes, by all means, ignore the rest of the post and miss the point.

Considering that the rest of your point has nothing to do with my argument, or as far as I can tell, anyone else's argument on here? Why shouldn't I ignore it?

It's literally what a lot of people have been saying again and again and you're now just acting like a kid covering his ears:

Pitbulls aren't the problem, people are.

[Crockerland]

They should be bred out, but not put down.

Animals with that kind of jaw force shouldn't be allowed as domestic pets.

Many of the most popular dog breeds in the world, such as the German Shepard (238 PSI), Rottweiler (328 PSI), English Mastiff (556 PSI), and Dobermann (600 PSI), all have stronger bite forces than the Pitbull (235 PSI). Instead of breeding them out, how about we just stop fearmongering about nonproblems?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Admittedly my dogs are barking dogs. We've trained them to bark. But we just are not sure we can rely on the chow lab to tear a chunk of leg off of someone if someone trespasses. Mostly because we've never been in that situation. But we usually are out there in a flash as soon as our dogs start barking, so they never have the opportunity to become more aggressive towards strangers. They know that if they bark, we as their owners are going to protect both them and ourselves, so they just worry about barking.

Sounds like what you've actually trained them to know is that when they bark, you come running, and probably show affection to them. That's #1 reason why many dogs bark endlessly when their owners aren't present.

Well, our dogs are not endless barkers to be honest. But when they see a stranger going along the house, they do bark, and we come running and when we see nothing is happening, we reward them with affection because they alerted us, and offer no reward when nothing is happening. So they're trained to bark at people, not incessantly.

But yes, we first start with rewarding the barking when they're young, now that you mention it. It's only when they're older that we tend to hold affection towards them if nothing is happening.

[Telconi]

No, it shouldn't.

Your logic being what, exactly?

A person is fundamentally different from an animal.

[Conserative Morality]

My panties are completely untwisted here, darlin'. You're the one arguing hard and angry-sounding, you put it out there, so you're getting responses. One would almost think this were *gasp* a discussion forum or some shit, god forbid, the way people are carrying on here. The nerve.

Yeah, the way that people act pseudo-offended and self-righteous over people expressing opinions is really annoying. I sometimes wonder why I bother with posters like that.

You also clearly missed the sarcasm in that first bit - the way you're arguing your points, the things you're bringing up, would better apply to the people rather than the innocent animals. That's what I was getting at there, and that's what you're missing.

All 'innocent' means is a lack of understanding of good and evil. All animals are innocent. That doesn't make them good, and that doesn't make them safe.

Should folks want to introduce more mellow to the breed, go for it. But I seriously do not believe for a moment that the fact that some animals are bred for certain qualities means they will all have those qualities regardless of environment and training, and will be a danger on account.

And nowhere have I said anything of the sort! Congratulations on your excellent reading comprehension.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly now, there are other far more likely to bite or harm sorts of animals out there, but they aren't seen as a 'threat' because of size, and a bad reputation due to human abuse, bad press who thrive on drama, and misguided fear.

"Oh these two situations are comparable because small dogs usually have trouble causing harm to other people and dogs"

I don't really give a shit about aggression. I don't really give a shit about physical strength. I give a shit when those two things collide and create public health problems.

[Camicon]

Your logic being what, exactly?

A person is fundamentally different from an animal.

In what way? Stop drawing this out and post all your thoughts.

[Conserative Morality]

Dog breeds exhibit average behavioral differences Y/N

According to this (posted before in this thread)

"However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: "The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed." While breed is a factor, the impact of other factors relating to the individual animal (such as training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) prevent breed from having significant predictive value in its own right. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials."

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Liter ... ntion.aspx

Not in aggressiveness.

FFS

[Corrian]

I think I shall abstain from this topic, as I know all its going to do is piss me off.

[Camicon]

According to this (posted before in this thread)
Not in aggressiveness.

FFS

Quite.

"However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: "The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed." While breed is a factor, the impact of other factors relating to the individual animal (such as training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) prevent breed from having significant predictive value in its own right. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials."

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Liter ... ntion.aspx

[United Kingdom of Poland]

They should be bred out, but not put down.

Animals with that kind of jaw force shouldn't be allowed as domestic pets.

Many of the most popular dog breeds in the world, such as the German Shepard (238 PSI), Rottweiler (328 PSI), English Mastiff (556 PSI), and Dobermann (600 PSI), all have stronger bite forces than the Pitbull (235 PSI). Instead of breeding them out, how about we just stop fearmongering about nonproblems?

hell, even retrievers and labs are more than capable of taking a finger/ seriously injuring someone's hand.

[Telconi]

A person is fundamentally different from an animal.

In what way? Stop drawing this out and post all your thoughts.

No

[Neutraligon]

According to this (posted before in this thread)
Not in aggressiveness.

FFS

FFS Did you read the next part of the sentence where it is not predictive?

[Conserative Morality]

No. Because the way that people interact with dogs has a far larger effect on how dogs behave than the general traits of their breed.

"Dog breeds have different behavioral averages but that doesn't mean on average a dog will behave differently because training is more important."

...

The "overall problem" - greatly exaggerated by a sensationalist media - with pit bulls is not because of any behavioural problem inherent in pit bulls. It's because of the few shitty people who are training and socializing them.

That problem is exacerbated by the fact that Pit Bulls *are* an aggressive breed, and have the physical capabilities to make that aggression dangerous.

[Hudson]

This entire argument is flawed for so many reasons. Kill off a breed because we're afraid of it's bite... Here's the thing though, most deaths or serious complications from dog bites aren't from the wound itself, but come from secondary infections from the bite. Rabies is obviously the most well known, but there are plenty of infectious agents that can enter the system through bites. These only require the skin to be broken, and even a chihuahua can break skin with its bite. Small dogs tend to be more prone aggression as well for a variety of reasons. So from a strict public heath standpoint, chihuahuas and other small dogs should be banned based on this logic.

Ultimately, all dogs can be dangerous. So can your car. The important thing is not being stupid and making sure the dog is well trained.

[Conserative Morality]

FFS

Quite.

"However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey based data: "The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed." While breed is a factor, the impact of other factors relating to the individual animal (such as training method, sex and neutering status), the target (e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) prevent breed from having significant predictive value in its own right. Also the nature of a breed has been shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for conformation showing versus field trials."

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Liter ... ntion.aspx

"You can't judge individual dogs by their breed."

"Okay, I'm not doing that. I'm judging the breed by its breed."

"Lol look at you judging individual dogs by their breed. contradicting this report."

???

[Thermodolia]

Overly aggressive dogs is a problem, and it stems from breeding dogs for fighting. That needs to stop

I am sure you have a source that most pits continue to be bred for fighting. Oh and there was that source earlier that said that breed was not exactly the best predictor of aggression in a breed.

No that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that people breeding them for dog fighting will continue to abuse those dogs to make them more aggressive during a fight and then dump these abused and overly aggressive dogs out on the street once they have out lived their usefulness. That needs to stop

[Camicon]

In what way? Stop drawing this out and post all your thoughts.

No

Then...

It's a friggin' discussion forum.