Hateful pitbull myths proven wrong.

[Khoranth]

http://www.viralnova.com/vicks-fight...xQRKuYVL0Zs.01

22 dogs taken from Vicks fighting ring, rehabilitated into loving, caring dogs.

This story goes to show, pitbulls are not "natural born killers", they are the same as any other big dog. A bad dog is the result of a bad human.

Some good links delivered by theostrichsays(or go to post 26 if the links dont work):

http://www.whas11.com/news/Metrosafe...162530556.html (read the comments it tells the story of why this is relevant)
http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog...ls-killed.html (because the headlines were pitbulls but you can do the eye test there....)

Right here is a nice link with some info relevant to all dog attacks...
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...ed-fatalities/

Here is a the ATTS (who is actually accepted and legit)
http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

[Deleted]

Whilst not natural born killers, the genetic make up is one of that designed specifically for fighting; And they're generally much more rougher in play-fighting than other breeds.

But that's the limit of the "Aggressiveness" hands down it comes to the owner to properly socialize and train the dog.

But a bad dog isn't always the result of a bad human, some dogs have lashed out for no conceivable reason; At the end of the day, they're animals.

[Khoranth]

Whilst not natural born killers, the genetic make up is one of that designed specifically for fighting; And they're generally much more rougher in play-fighting than other breeds.

But that's the limit of the "Aggressiveness" hands down it comes to the owner to properly socialize and train the dog.

But a bad dog isn't always the result of a bad human, some dogs have lashed out for no conceivable reason; At the end of the day, they're animals.

Pitbulls were not bred for fighting. The quality bred into them, that nasty humans recognized, is sometimes called gameness. A dog with this quality is so full of love for their master, they are willing to suffer bodily harm, and work through pain and suffering; all because they love their master and want to please the master.

Pitbulls are not the strongest dog, they do not have the strongest bite and they are not the most aggressive dog, but they are the most loving dog, willing to suffer anything to please their master.

It is a sick twist that despicable humans used this quality to make dog fighters out of them.

this is what a pitbull was bred for: to protect their master, out of love, even if it meant suffering
http://abcnews.go.com/US/pit-bull-re...ry?id=16311409

Very few other dogs would step in front of a train for the ones they love.

[Deleted]

Pitbulls were not bred for fighting. The quality bred into them, that nasty humans recognized, is sometimes called gameness. A dog with this quality is so full of love for their master, they are willing to suffer bodily harm, and work through pain and suffering; all because they love their master and want to please the master.

Pitbulls are not the strongest dog, they do not have the strongest bite and they are not the most aggressive dog, but they are the most loving dog, willing to suffer anything to please their master.

It is a sick twist that despicable humans used this quality to make dog fighters out of them.

Pitbulls were not bred for fighting.

Yes they were.

pit bulls were originally bred for dog fighting and bull and bear baiting.

The quality bred into them, that nasty humans recognized, is sometimes called gameness.

Game or Gameness is a quality of fighting dogs or working terriers that are selectively bred and conditioned from a very early age to develop traits of eagerness despite the threat of substantive injury. Dogs displaying this trait can also be described as persevering, ready and willing, full of fight, spirited, or plucky.[1]

They were selectively bred to better the genetic disposition for their perceived roles, and trained to fight.

A dog with this quality is so full of love for their master, they are willing to suffer bodily harm, and work through pain and suffering; all because they love their master and want to please the master.

You attaching soppy labels of love and emotion doesn't diminish it.

They were selectively and purposefully bred to be fighting dogs, and as such the behavioral traits were more in line of aggression and fighting; The training they underwent further exacerbated that.

Pitbulls are not the strongest dog, they do not have the strongest bite and they are not the most aggressive dog

I never stated otherwise, but ignoring the history behind them and the studies attesting to it is cognitive dissonance.

It is a sick twist that despicable humans used this quality to make dog fighters out of them.

A dog was a tool to us not too long ago.

We used them for hunting, for fighting, and for retrieving/ shepherding.

They gave companionship and fulfilled a job that a human otherwise would of had to do.

Sure it's awful we used dogs fighting as a past-time entertainment but that age has largely passed us now, some chavs in an estate might partake in the same sport that was seen in the mid 1700's; But it's outlawed.

I know a woman who has 3 pitbulls, they're fantastic dogs and i have no bad feelings to them (My family are quite big on dogs) but ignoring their history and behavioral traits isn't earning you favors here.

[Kalis]

Pitbulls were not bred for fighting. The quality bred into them, that nasty humans recognized, is sometimes called gameness. A dog with this quality is so full of love for their master, they are willing to suffer bodily harm, and work through pain and suffering; all because they love their master and want to please the master.

Pitbulls are not the strongest dog, they do not have the strongest bite and they are not the most aggressive dog, but they are the most loving dog, willing to suffer anything to please their master.

It is a sick twist that despicable humans used this quality to make dog fighters out of them.

this is what a pitbull was bred for: to protect their master, out of love, even if it meant suffering
http://abcnews.go.com/US/pit-bull-re...ry?id=16311409

Very few other dogs would step in front of a train for the ones they love.

Their reputation as dangerous dogs comes from poor ownership, but to say they weren't designed to be fighting dogs is a rather bizarre claim, as that was the entire point of them when they were first bred.

It's a relatively recent phenomenon that they became family pets.

[Khoranth]

Yes they were.






They were selectively bred to better the genetic disposition for their perceived roles, and trained to fight.


You attaching soppy labels of love and emotion doesn't diminish it.

They were selectively and purposefully bred to be fighting dogs, and as such the behavioral traits were more in line of aggression and fighting; The training they underwent further exacerbated that.


I never stated otherwise, but ignoring the history behind them and the studies attesting to it is cognitive dissonance.


A dog was a tool to us not too long ago.

We used them for hunting, for fighting, and for retrieving/ shepherding.

They gave companionship and fulfilled a job that a human otherwise would of had to do.

Sure it's awful we used dogs fighting as a past-time entertainment but that age has largely passed us now, some chavs in an estate might partake in the same sport that was seen in the mid 1700's; But it's outlawed.

I know a woman who has 3 pitbulls, they're fantastic dogs and i have no bad feelings to them (My family are quite big on dogs) but ignoring their history and behavioral traits isn't earning you favors here.

ok this is from your link about pitbulls:

It’s not accurate to say that pit bulls are “fighting dogs,” because such a designation fails to describe such a diverse animal population, most of which are very far from “fighting stock” and will never be involved in fighting of any kind.

From their inception, these dogs have been bred for general human companionship, and since the 1900s, they have been bred for conformation showing as well. From the very beginning, pit bulls have been used as farm dogs, family dogs, military mascots, and all-purpose companions. In England, the Staffie Bull is affectionately known as “The Nanny Dog” or “The Children’s Nursemaid” because of their placid and nurturing demeanor toward children. (Regardless of how gentle your pit bull is with kids, dogs of any breed should never be left alone unsupervised with children.)

[Toppy]

Lets not forget they also have a strong tendency to become very aggressive against even familiar people, even after being seemingly trained away from fighting.

[Khoranth]

Their reputation as dangerous dogs comes from poor ownership, but to say they weren't designed to be fighting dogs is a rather bizarre claim, as that was the entire point of them when they were first bred.

It's a relatively recent phenomenon that they became family pets.

No, they were not bred as fighting dogs. They were bred as farm/family dogs.

EDIT: i was off, this link explains what they were bred for http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtua...bout-pit-bulls

This says they were working dogs, bred to help hunters with large animals

[Queen of Hamsters]

Ignorant people will still find reasons to hate them. As someone devoted to the rottweiler breed, I hear moronic comments ALL THE TIME. I plan a puppy next year and people actually tell me "Oh...so you don't want children? Since rottweilers will eat children if given a chance?". They say it as if it's a proven FACT...-_-.

[Tradewind]

How unfortunate, I tend to agree that it's more to do with the owner than the animal, any animal can be taught how to be a dick.

But I see Khoranth has already broken another thread of his within the first page...so, abandoning before he blames everyone else for it *hat tip*

[Queen of Hamsters]

No, they were not bred as fighting dogs. They were bred as farm/family dogs.

That's just wrong, they HAVE a history of breeding for fighting. Just as rottweilers USED to be bred for cattle herding and guarding once in their history. Read up on the history of Pit Bull Terriers. They were bred and used as farm and family dogs, yes...but also in fighting. Different people used them for different things.

[Deleted]

its not the dog i hate, its just basically every pitbull owner you see over here is incredibly rough and their dogs are pretty much always aggressive, well you don't get many pitbulls here, but you see a lot of staffys. again, i don't think the dog is naturally aggressive, but they tend to always be owned by the worst kind of people that want them for the supposed toughness and raise them to be aggressive.

[Deleted]

ok this is from your link about pitbulls:

It’s not accurate to say that pit bulls are “fighting dogs,” because such a designation fails to describe such a diverse animal population, most of which are very far from “fighting stock” and will never be involved in fighting of any kind.

From their inception, these dogs have been bred for general human companionship, and since the 1900s, they have been bred for conformation showing as well. From the very beginning, pit bulls have been used as farm dogs, family dogs, military mascots, and all-purpose companions. In England, the Staffie Bull is affectionately known as “The Nanny Dog” or “The Children’s Nursemaid” because of their placid and nurturing demeanor toward children. (Regardless of how gentle your pit bull is with kids, dogs of any breed should never be left alone unsupervised with children.)

I said that pitbulls were originally created for fighting and specifically bred for that purpose, that link attests to that.

Humans have created dog breeds by emphasizing desirable traits and eliminating unwanted ones. It is no different with pit bulls. In the same way that Labradors were bred to retrieve birds, pit bulls were originally bred for dog fighting and bull and bear baiting.

Pit bulls are descendants of the original English bull-baiting dog — a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. "Bulldogs" were bred to hang on without releasing their grip, until the animal was exhausted from fighting and from loss of blood. When baiting large animals was banned in the 1800s, people then started to fight their dogs against each other instead.

As the "sport" of dogfighting developed, enthusiasts bred a lighter, more athletic canine. These dogs made their way to North America, the ancestors of today's pit bulls. Pit bulls that were not used for fighting were considered ideal family pets — affectionate, loyal and gentle with children. Serious problems started when these dogs gained the attention of people looking for a macho dog — and to meet their demands, unscrupulous and uncaring breeders are producing puppies that were not only aggressive to other dogs, but also to people.

The Pit Bull Terrier was created by breeding Old English Terriers and Old English Bulldogs together to produce a dog that combined the gameness of the terrier with the strength and athleticism of the bulldog.[6] These dogs were bred in England, and arrived in the United States where they became the direct ancestors of the American Pitbull Terrier. In the United Kingdom pit bulls were used in bloodsports such as bull baiting, bear baiting and cock fighting. These bloodsports were officially eliminated in 1835 as Britain began to introduce animal welfare laws. Since dogfights were cheaper to organise and far easier to conceal from the law than bull or bear baits, bloodsport proponents turned to pitting their dogs against each other instead. Dog fighting was used as both a bloodsport (often involving gambling) and a way to continue to test the quality of their stock. For decades afterwards, dog fighting clandestinely took place in small areas of Britain and America. In the early 20th century pitbulls were used as catch dogs in America for semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, and drive livestock, and as family companions.[6] Some have been selectively bred for their fighting prowess.[7][8]

Ignore the history if you wish, but they were bred to be fighting dogs.

End of.

I love them nonetheless and they're now family pets, but they still have certain unique behavioral traits that only fighting dogs have; It's also observed they're rougher in playing and require more socialization than other dogs to function normally with others.

[Kalis]

Ignorant people will still find reasons to hate them. As someone devoted to the rottweiler breed, I hear moronic comments ALL THE TIME. I plan a puppy next year and people actually tell me "Oh...so you don't want children? Since rottweilers will eat children if given a chance?". They say it as if it's a proven FACT...-_-.

I love rottweilers, I sometimes get to dogsit a beauty named Raya. She is so gorgeous and well behaved until she gets fed up of walking then sits down and you can't get her to move unless you turn around. Her owner says she is the laziest rottweiler she's ever owned.

People always give me a wide berth when I walk her, and the looks on the faces of some people are great.

[Khoranth]

Well i will admit i was somewhat wrong. After reading some of this stuff, they were originally bred for gameness, to help farmers/hunters, but then, in later years, some people bred them to fight.

But i still put forth that the gameness quality was the reason for some people breeding them to fight.

- - - Updated - - -

How unfortunate, I tend to agree that it's more to do with the owner than the animal, any animal can be taught how to be a dick.

But I see Khoranth has already broken another thread of his within the first page...so, abandoning before he blames everyone else for it *hat tip*

I have the ability to read, comprehend and admit i was mistaken, unlike some people.

[Knough]

I once met a man in Devon who lived for a while amongst wolves, and they played with him and could be described as "rehabilitated into loving, caring dogs."; this doesn't mean that all wolves are nice? Silly example, but it should get the point about the low numbers.

22 dogs turned nice can't overrule 40.8% of the fatal dog bites in US in the past five years (recent sample, basic maths, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_d...Summary_tables) being from Pitbulls, and a second largers proportion of fatalities being from mixed breeds which could include part pitbull.

Pocho was a "domesticated" crocodile in Costa Rice, while Gustave is a crocodile who has roughly 300 deaths attributed to him; 22 dogs can't redeem a species, you need much larger amounts on tested domestication *and* proof that the dogs can't be made to be aggressive; you'd have trouble training a Chihuahua to be a fighter against other Chihuahuas, Pitbulls, not so much, and there will always be some who want aggressive dogs and thus, bad reputation?

On the topic of breeding, I think that has very little relevance compared to upbringing; take a human, evolved as we are, teach him maths, he might make a decent accountant. Take a human, while he grows up, make him do nothing but attack and be attacked, he'll be aggressive? The issue with any nasty dogs, starts with the owner.



I bothered with all of that to avoid starting work, and to shoehorn in Gustave, check him out on wikipedia!

[Khoranth]

I once met a man in Devon who lived for a while amongst wolves, and they played with him and could be described as "rehabilitated into loving, caring dogs."; this doesn't mean that all wolves are nice? Silly example, but it should get the point about the low numbers.

22 dogs turned nice can't overrule 40.8% of the fatal dog bites in US in the past five years (recent sample, basic maths, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_d...Summary_tables) being from Pitbulls, and a second largers proportion of fatalities being from mixed breeds which could include part pitbull.

Pocho was a "domesticated" crocodile in Costa Rice, while Gustave is a crocodile who has roughly 300 deaths attributed to him; 22 dogs can't redeem a species, you need much larger amounts on tested domestication *and* proof that the dogs can't be made to be aggressive; you'd have trouble training a Chihuahua to be a fighter against other Chihuahuas, Pitbulls, not so much, and there will always be some who want aggressive dogs and thus, bad reputation?

On the topic of breeding, I think that has very little relevance compared to upbringing; take a human, evolved as we are, teach him maths, he might make a decent accountant. Take a human, while he grows up, make him do nothing but attack and be attacked, he'll be aggressive? The issue with any nasty dogs, starts with the owner.



I bothered with all of that to avoid starting work, and to shoehorn in Gustave, check him out on wikipedia!

Wow that is a really interesting chart. I think the fact that pitbulls barely appear on the dogbite fatallity list, until just recently, really goes to show that it is the evil human masters, not the dog.

It is very sad that nasty people have taken an interest in getting pitbulls recently.

[Simulacrum]

... you'd have trouble training a Chihuahua to be a fighter against other Chihuahuas...

lol

/10chars

[Bearfist]

you'd have trouble training a Chihuahua to be a fighter against other Chihuahuas, Pitbulls, not so much, and there will always be some who want aggressive dogs and thus, bad reputation?
!

As quick as my mother's Chuhuahua is to growl, bare teeth, and be a general pain, I'm sure you COULD teach them to fight it'd just be.... very special. I had to go way out of my way to teach her to stop harassing my cats around food. She'd walk up, snap at them, and drive them off. Angry little git....

I've known a few pitts in my life, Peewee was a white one we had when I was like 3-4 and that dog loved me to death. Let me pull his ears and tail, fall on him. Kid stuff. My mom said he was one of the most passive dogs she's ever had. Our other current dog is a half pitt half boarder collie and he's super sweet too. Have a friend with a boxer/pitt who is also just diabetus inducing sweet.

I know that's anecdotal evidence but the dogs in my life that have ever given me cause to be afraid or give them wide breaths are not pitts.

Edit for derpy punctuation.

[Randec]

This isn't news to me, my pit is a big baby.