Pit bulls : Dangerous dogs or friendly buddies?

[Vago]

I can give you a story on this from my own personal experience. My ex-wife had an uncle with two pits, raised them since pups and did everything with them, they even slept in the bed with him. One day he was out in his garage, no one knows for sure what happened or how it started, but they attacked him. Tore off both his arms then according to his son, who was the first one on the scene, sat down beside him and wouldn't let anyone close. They attacked the son when he tried to help his dad, luckily he made it back to his truck. When the police arrived they had to shoot the dogs to get close. Now obviously I wasn't around the uncle and the dogs every single day but I can tell you when my ex got the news his own dogs attacked him I was in total shock and I've never looked at pits the same since...I don't want to be anywhere close to them (have owned 2 in the past)

[Queen of Hamsters]

The breed was made with fighting in mind, and it does that well and is thus inherently dangerous. .

As I said, ignorance. If you're going to speak of adding emotions being useless, then at least speak from a point of knowledge that runs deeper than what you've read in tabloids.

http://www.badrap.org/breed-history

Myths and truths about the Pit Bull

The Pit Bull has not been bred for fighting in reputable circuits, where people should be getting their puppies from, for generations. But then again, we still see people refer to the Rottweiler's history as a "butcher dog" (LOL) so one shouldn't be surprised.

Knowing for what reasons one should socialize a pit bull-type dog is no different from owners of hunting dogs knowing what to expect from their dogs around other animals.

[Nasukkin]

"Are pitbulls more dangerous that other dogs?" - This isn't really a pollable question. The answer, based on statistics in the United States at least, is objectively yes. Pit Bulls contribute contribute to the supermajority of canine-inflicted injuries in the US, according to... well, every resource I've ever seen. By all means, pick your poison when it comes to sources, but I'll just leave the CDC's statistics here for now: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm

Sure, you could blame it on the individual dogs' upbringing and say that pitbulls are targetted by their owners for the specific purpose of being able to be conditioned for aggression and violence. That's fine and well. Sure, you could also blame victims for not knowing how to conduct themselves around dogs; also perfectly valid. These two factors can't be ignored. Humans are assholes.

But Pit Bulls still contribute to the vast majority of injuries when it comes to breeds. The numbers are what they are, and they don't lie.

IMHO, Pit Bulls are bad, but not because they are PBs. All dog breeds are bad. I mean... dog breeds are a result of inbreeding, which is animal cruelty in my opinion. We know what inbreeding does; it's bad for the organism regardless of species. Mutts are the best IMHO. Stop making breeds a thing and we can start pointing the finger at asshole dog owners more readily.

[Queen of Hamsters]

That's been my experience with dogs as well. Even "scary" dogs like doberman pinschers can be cuddly puppies if they're raised and cared for properly. I've had quite a few interactions with a number of different breeds and chihuahuas are the only ones who have ever drawn blood from me. Sharp little teeth on those buggers.

One of the "worst" dogs I've ever known, was a Flat-coated Retriever. Shoddy breeding coupled with an owner believing firmly in the dominance hypothesis resulted in a dog that was not only mentally unstable from birth but also kept under constant terror from those that SHOULD have made it feel safe. The owners had to warn children from getting close, and more than once it snapped and attacked the hands of its owner out of fear of being reprimanded for as simple things as walking a bit in front of the owner or really doing anything without being given permission... They had to put the dog down at the age of 7. Nobody ever told them to do it before simply because it was a retriever, people are far more lenient towards them.

That dog had a sibling living in the same village that was equally mentally fragile, but it had come to a home where positive reinforcement, socialization and controlled freedom reigned supreme. It lived to be 14 and became more mentally stable the older it got.

- - - Updated - - -

IMHO, Pit Bulls are bad, but not because they are PBs. All dog breeds are bad. I mean... dog breeds are a result of inbreeding, which is animal cruelty in my opinion. We know what inbreeding does; it's bad for the organism regardless of species. Mutts are the best IMHO. Stop making breeds a thing and we can start pointing the finger at asshole dog owners more readily.

The simple truth behind Pit Bulls-type dogs being overrepresented in bad situations in the US, is the fact that

A) They're numerically quite a common type of dog in the states.
B) They're favored by the exact same type of people that shouldn't own dogs and that WANT the bad rep that comes with these dogs for all the wrong reasons.

Looking at just how common they are, the percentage involved in incidents is still miniscule. Same as with the GSD, the Doberman, the Rottweiler, the American Bulldog and so on...

As for your view on breeds... Ironically, very few "Pit Bulls"-type dogs are actually purebred. So...
Speaking from experience, mutts do not in any shape or form guarantee you a healthy, mentally sound dog bred by people taking pride in what they produce. You want the breeds to go away with years of historical significance and practical fields of use regardless of if the breed even has issues? Hmph... Luckily the breeders are less lazy and instead work towards improving the breeds. Within my own breed, 0.0% inbreeding grade is what breeders strive for and achieve, along with mental strength and health. When I buy a dog from that breed and those kinds of breeders, I get a dog that I know have been produced with care for health and mentality, and that will be 100% covered by insurance as a result IF misfortune should strike.

Meanwhile, I know of several crossbreeders that will mix dogs based on if they are "cute" or not, with no regard to health or mentality.

[bloodkin]

Ah yes, that must be why so many are discarded, used as bait for the rare dogs that are inherently good at fighting and why training of fighting dogs isn't a thing.

As I said, ignorance. If you're going to speak of adding emotions being useless, then at least speak from a point of knowledge that runs deeper than what you've read in tabloids.

http://www.badrap.org/breed-history

Myths and truths about the Pit Bull

The Pit Bull has not been bred for fighting in reputable circuits, where people should be getting their puppies from, for generations. But then again, we still see people refer to the Rottweiler's history as a "butcher dog" (LOL) so one shouldn't be surprised.

Even if pit bulls have been bred for multiple generations with fighting as a breeding goal doesn't mean it can't be aggressive. Typical behavioral traits that are inherent to a breed don't just magically disappear. As I mentioned before, training can influence an animal's behavior but it's behavior is never 100% predictable. Indeed, you can train any dog to be incredibly docile but it will never change that fact that it will act on it's own. In fact, we still use typical behavioral traits today to our advantage to train and condition dogs.

If you have a dog, no matter the breed, you should know that it is capable of doing harm to others, even if it's been properly trained and behaves well. Pit bulls and other 'fighting"dog breeds are just more dangerous not because of behavioral issues but because they are anatomically stronger (larger jaw muscles etc.) and more dangerous than other dogs. Try comparing a bite wound from a smaller breed (corgi, pug, maltese etc.) to that of a larger breed.

Breeding quality, percentage of inbreeding, choice in parents and upbringing and training all contribute to the likelihood that a dog might attack or display dangerous behavior, but ultimatily it's still a (somewhat) wild animal, not a programmed robot.

[Vanyali]

Even if pit bulls have been bred for multiple generations with fighting as a breeding goal doesn't mean it can't be aggressive. Typical behavioral traits that are inherent to a breed don't just magically disappear. As I mentioned before, training can influence an animal's behavior but it's behavior is never 100% predictable. Indeed, you can train anydog to be incredibly docile but it will never change that fact that it will act on it's own. In fact, we still use typical behavioral traits today to our advantage to train and condition dogs.

If you have a dog, no matter the breed, you should know that it is capable of doing harm to others, even if it's been properly trained and behaves well. Pit bulls and other 'fighting"dog breeds are just more dangerous not because of behavioral issues but because they are anatomically stronger (larger jaw muscles etc.) and more dangerous than other dogs. Try comparing a bite wound from a smaller breed (corgi, pug, maltese etc.) to that of a larger breed.

Fighting dogs, in general, are bred to NOT be human aggressive.

You can separate dog aggression and human aggression, and any dog that was fighting and was human aggressive was culled. Instantly. When fighting dogs, you need to be able to handle them, you need to be able to separate them, and you need to be able to do that WITHOUT getting bitten.

This "they were fighting dogs!" argument actually only works if you're arguing against "pitbulls" being human aggressive. Unless you're talking recent fighting, which is done with mixed breed random shit-dogs with owners that know fuckall about training or breeding.

[Queen of Hamsters]

If you have a dog, no matter the breed, you should know that it is capable of doing harm to others, even if it's been properly trained and behaves well. Pit bulls and other 'fighting"dog breeds are just more dangerous not because of behavioral issues but because they are anatomically stronger (larger jaw muscles etc.) and more dangerous than other dogs. Try comparing a bite wound from a smaller breed (corgi, pug, maltese etc.) to that of a larger breed.

The first bolded part I agree with, as should any responsible dog owner. The second bolded part however... As I've said, the Pit Bull is not even recommended as a guard dog due to how inherently loving they tend to be towards humans. Even during the generations where some lines , far from all of them, were bred for fighting, the fighting was aimed at other animals, not humans...

During a dog fight, there would often be 2 humans standing in the ring with the dogs. When they wanted to separate the dogs, they would do so without ever coming to harm themselves. IF a dog turned its aggression towards the handler, it would rarely make it back home alive.

Of course, dog fighting of today is done by far less picky people that are just as happy with the dogs being threats towards humans. But again, those lines that they breed upon (and often mix with whatever), do not make it into the general population of pit bulls from caring breeders at the light side of society.

The vast, VAST majority of dogs belonging to any breed live out their lives without ever harming anyone. On the list of my mentor over dog breeds that pose a threat to humans, he didn't even count the Pit bull-type of dogs other than by the fact that they'd become so common among bad people. Physical strength? Many breeds overpower it easily. Mentality? Many breeds have much more sharpness to them. Why aren't those breeds more commonly featured in dog on human violence? Because the bad scum of society hasn't yet opened its eyes to them... the Pit Bull-type of dogs are victim of that still.

If we go by pure percentages, a pit bull has much more to fear from humans than humans have to fear from them. For every pit bull-type dog that is involved in dog-on-human violence, thousands upon THOUSANDS of them are the victim of human-on-dog violence.

- - - Updated - - -

Fighting dogs, in general, are bred to NOT be human aggressive.

You can separate dog aggression and human aggression, and any dog that was fighting and was human aggressive was culled. Instantly. When fighting dogs, you need to be able to handle them, you need to be able to separate them, and you need to be able to do that WITHOUT getting bitten.

This "they were fighting dogs!" argument actually only works if you're arguing against "pitbulls" being human aggressive. Unless you're talking recent fighting, which is done with mixed breed random shit-dogs with owners that know fuckall about training or breeding.

Exactly, 100% this.

[Vilvaldi]

Pitbulls are absolutely more dangerous than any other dog breeds.

What this means is that statistically they are more likely to harm people than other dog breeds given the same standard of ownership.

What it does not mean is that every pitbull is bad. What it does not mean is that no other dogs have the capacity to be as (or more) dangerous.


People need to stop using emotional arguments in this, especially when that emotion is pride/arrogance. Of course a pitbull in the hands of an irresponsible owner is a recipe for disaster, but even in the hands of a great owner, any dog can be dangerous, and this is more so for the pitbull than any other breed.

Yes any breed can be dangerous, but saying a pitbull more than any other breed is not true. have look at a Boer Boel, a Fila Brasileiro and Caucasian Ovcharka.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Breeding quality, percentage of inbreeding, choice in parents and upbringing and training all contribute to the likelihood that a dog might attack or display dangerous behavior, but ultimatily it's still a (somewhat) wild animal, not a programmed robot.

Actually no, the dog is very much a domesticated species. Unless we're talking puppies mixed with wolf here.
Are they programmed robots? No, but they're not wild animals either by any stretch of the imagination.

Dogs are not inherently dangerous to humans. Studies made on puppies vs wolf cubs has shown just how big the differences are. Dogs have evolved to inherently understand human signals, paying heed to our emotions and body language and that paying attention to us equals something positive.

A wolf cub? None of that. They're wild animals.

[bloodkin]

The first bolded part I agree with, as should any responsible dog owner. The second bolded part however... As I've said, the Pit Bull is not even recommended as a guard dog due to how inherently loving they tend to be towards humans. Even during the generations where some lines , far from all of them, were bred for fighting, the fighting was aimed at other animals, not humans...

During a dog fight, there would often be 2 humans standing in the ring with the dogs. When they wanted to separate the dogs, they would do so without ever coming to harm themselves. IF a dog turned its aggression towards the handler, it would rarely make it back home alive.

Of course, dog fighting of today is done by far less picky people that are just as happy with the dogs being threats towards humans. But again, those lines that they breed upon (and often mix with whatever), do not make it into the general population of pit bulls from caring breeders at the light side of society.

The vast, VAST majority of dogs belonging to any breed live out their lives without ever harming anyone. On the list of my mentor over dog breeds that pose a threat to humans, he didn't even count the Pit bull-type of dogs other than by the fact that they'd become so common among bad people. Physical strength? Many breeds overpower it easily. Mentality? Many breeds have much more sharpness to them. Why aren't those breeds more commonly featured in dog on human violence? Because the bad scum of society hasn't yet opened its eyes to them... the Pit Bull-type of dogs are victim of that still.

I specifically didn't mention pit bulls here as there are indeed other breeds that can do more harm and can behave more dangerously. It's true that pit bulls do have an increased social stigma due to it's popularity among people that poorly train them and own them as status symbols rather than actual pets. These people also often make very poor choices when they start to breed pit bulls, resulting in either extreme inbreeding or other very negative breeding practices. This also means, that to a certain degree that taking a rescue 'fighting' breed dog can be more risky than smaller sized breeds, simply because that could have been raised badly or because it's from a very unstable home-brew breed.

It's absolutely possible to have a pit bull or similar breed of dog as suitable pet, but owners should be aware of their breed's history and possible behavioral tendencies. Especially concerning inbreeding as that still seems to happen to a lot of smaller breeds of dogs, with pugs and bulldogs can't even reproduce naturally, needing artificial insemination and cesarean section to reproduce, or having extreme hip dysplasia in larger breeds of dogs such as german Sheppard. This level of inbreeding also makes many breeds mentally unstable an not suitable to be around people who don't know how to interact with such a dog (children).

Actually no, the dog is very much a domesticated species. Unless we're talking puppies mixed with wolf here.
Are they programmed robots? No, but they're not wild animals either by any stretch of the imagination.

Dogs are not inherently dangerous to humans. Studies made on puppies vs wolf cubs has shown just how big the differences are. Dogs have evolved to inherently understand human signals, paying heed to our emotions and body language and that paying attention to us equals something positive.

A wolf cub? None of that. They're wild animals.

It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd be very interested to see the full report of that research.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I specifically didn't mention pit bulls here as there are indeed other breeds that can do more harm and can behave more dangerously. It's true that pit bulls do have an increased social stigma due to it's popularity among people that poorly train them and own them as status symbols rather than actual pets. These people also often make very poor choices when they start to breed pit bulls, resulting in either extreme inbreeding or other very negative breeding practices. This also means, that to a certain degree that taking a rescue 'fighting' breed dog can be more risky than smaller sized breeds, simply because that could have been raised badly or because it's from a very unstable home-brew breed.

It's absolutely possible to have a pit bull or similar breed of dog as suitable pet, but owners should be aware of their breed's history and possible behavioral tendencies. Especially concerning inbreeding as that still seems to happen to a lot of smaller breeds of dogs, with pugs and bulldogs can't even reproduce naturally, needing artificial insemination and cesarean section to reproduce, or having extreme hip dysplasia in larger breeds of dogs such as german Sheppard. This level of inbreeding also makes many breeds mentally unstable an not suitable to be around people who don't know how to interact with such a dog (children).



It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd be very interested to see the full report of that research.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...fferent-wolves

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-decoded.html

http://moderndogmagazine.com/article...y-language/278

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...-intelligence/]



The research is ongoing, but it's been common knowledge among dog people for centuries just how tightly tuned they are to us. The dog is not only domesticated, but the first species we domesticated and the species that's been alongside us for the longest time. Saying they're "wild animals" in any shape or form is detrimental to dogs all over the world as they're abandoned by owners thinking that the dogs will just adapt back to a life in the wild.

Not even comparing the dog to wolves in order to explain behaviour is a good thing due to how different they are... and of course due to the fact that the "wolf studies" many based their view of the dogs upon featured wolves in unnatural surroundings and the highly subjective data collected by 1 man. Dogs are dogs, they're not humans nor wolves and not even stray dogs cut the bond to mankind and start hunting in the wilds functioning like a pack of wolves, African Wild dogs etc...

[Fencers]

I have had pitbulls. Adorable. Total softies.

We rescued a slightly older pitbull and he is a true gentlemen. And one of the most lovable and gentle dogs I have ever known. He's around kids all day long isn't even fazed in the least. He's in a constant state of, "Whatever, kid."

Great dogs. I just wish they were as smart as Dobermans.

[truckboattruck]

blank slater ideological horseshit

[Putin-Chan]

Dangerous people tend to have dangerous dogs. Pitbulls are simply stronger, therefore dangerous people choose to make them dangerous dogs.

[RyanEX]

As with any pet it depends on it's environment and how it's raised.

That said Pitbulls are one of those breeds that require little training in regards to defending their territory. I have one currently, and it's considered the neighourhood sweety. Yes, she's aggressive to other dogs which is why I keep her on a short leash for walks, but around friends and family she goes crazy licking and jumping. My nephew adores her and almost always cries when it's time to leave.

However...

My brother who sometimes spends the night at my house, and who also gets along famously with my pit, knows NOT to jump the wall - which he does on occasion - at night when coming in. She hates seeing people coming over the wall and goes full guard mode when that happens.

Long story short it is far easier to make pitbulls into dangerous dogs than any other breed, but at the same time as with any other pet it depends heavily on the owner.

[Klingers]

I think pitbulls are like undead servants. How dangerous they are totally depends on who raised them.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

Personally, I don't like Pits. Too big, too bulky, and kind of ugly.

That said the main issue we have with Pits in our area are caused by back-yard breeders which are in awful conditions and will sell to anyone who has the cash. They're not interested in applications, references, intentions, identifying temperament triggers and training and the typical buyers who enable these puppy mills to thrive will provide them with a life of misery to boost their bullshit lifestyle. You can take any dog and abuse it, starve it and provide no training and it will eventually bite or indicate aggression which further exploits the explosive power of a Pit over, say, a Beagle.

This is why shelters such as the SPCA will do temperament tests to any dog which they rescue that isn't an attack case and is often full of Pits. They'll go over a list of triggers for resource guarding, touching, eye contact, interaction with other dogs (through a barrier) and so on and will thoroughly note and point their behavior on a scale. Should a dog indicate aggression in any specific field, it's referred to a trainer and will also require strict conditions to be met for adoption depending on certain triggers (no babies to pester, no other pets etc...).

Meanwhile, your garden-variety family-style dogs can develop an incredibly violent condition literally known as "Rage Syndrome" which no one ever seems concerned about. It's rare, to be sure, but I'd be interested to see statistics for comparison if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

If you want a Pit, a) get one from someone who gives a shit about their well-being and abides to breeding regulations even if it means paying more and b) be responsible for them, yourself, and others.

[-Zait-]

100% training and socialization

This +1

Anything else is irrational, imo

[Mormolyce]

If it truly is nurture over nature, then I guess we should be euthanising the pitbull owners?

Accurate statistics are very difficult to find on this topic. Personally I don't really know either way.

[Gaaz]

A very troublesome breed. Or rather several breeds to be exact, if you include subspecies. Numerous health issues, training is a must (otherwise it is a gun with broken safety), prone to uncontrollable rage fits if sufficiently agitated (and therefore will not follow orders from the owner). Also, training has very short term effect on them and requires constant "updates" or "reminders". So basically every year you have to spend a week or so going through training again, especially if the dog does not deal with commands on an everyday basis.
If you want an intelligent and easily trained large dog, go for one of the shepherd lineages or mixed breeds. German shepherd would be ideal for most people. They are very social and can be easily trained for most tasks. Intelligent as well, so rerun of the training courses will not be a problem. If you really need a powerhouse of a dog (for hunting or guard duty for example, especially in colder climates), look at Black Terriers. Just as easily trained as german shepherds and among the largest dog breeds. They however are prone to chose only one master to obey. So your wife / husband / children likely will not be able to order it around if it does not want to. Basically it will obey alpha, but the rest are just members of the pack with equal rights. Extremely protective of the family / pack members on instinctive levels. I have seen one break up joking fights among children by grabbing one on the back of a shirt and pulling one from the other, as well as trying to get inbetween to separate them from each other. Quite efficient at it too, considering it weights around the same as a grown man (sometimes upwards of 150 pounds / 70kg for a grown male).