Changing views on pits, one person at a time

Dani · Nov 10, 2005

Pit Bulls can be great with dogs, although (do to their dog-fighting past) precaution should be taken. But their temperment with people should always be stable and loving. Anything else is out of character, and do to abuse or poor breeding. That's why it makes more sense to promote responsible breeding and stiffer punishments for animal cruelty than to ban the entire breed.. Not to mention it's unfair to the stellar Pit Bulls who didn't do anything to deserve the discrimination.

Pit bulls are not perfect. Neither is any other breed. It's just that the Pit Bull is the breed to fear now (or so we are told), and they can't afford to do anything remotely questionable. Years back, we were taught to be scared of the Doberman,the Shepherd, the Chow Chow, etc. People are forgetting that dogs are individuals, and they will have their quirks, regardless of breed.

Oh, and good on you, Penny

. The more people see of Pit Bulls citizens like that, the better things will get for the breed.

amymarley · Nov 10, 2005

Sorry, but you won't change peoples views on pits... wether good or bad. I love them, most of them. My ex-boyfriend had a pit he saved from a fight (bought the dog out-right)... This same dog bit 21 people, his friends (luckily) and nothing happended. The second came from a good home, even fouund a kitten in a field (after the pit had a litter), and I have pictures of this kitten, who the pit brought back from the field by the scruff.... nursing off the pit... they are still best of friends. So it can go either way.

pitbulliest · Nov 12, 2005

oriondw said:

So why the hell should we care what you think when you don't even have stats or facts to back it up? If you want some facts, how's this:

Labs and Golden Retrievers are more likely to attack than pitbulls..according to the temperament testing society of America, pitbulls scored HIGHER than labs and beagles for example...

the fact that you personally HAVEN'T seen a lab be aggressive in the way a pit is doesn't say CRAP...I've seen a lab tear apart a 5 year old's face..how's that for your "don't really care" statement?

------------------------

rottiegirl..you are saying that NOW pitbulls are the problem..no..pitbulls are NOT the problem....EVERY dog is capable of attacking and mauling and biting and barking and everything else you can think of..pitbulls are not the problem....its the media that's the problem..they are focusing stictly on pitbulls and that's why that is all you see....does that make them the most dangerous dog? NO..does that make them the most likely to bite and attack? NO...does that mean they are the problem breed right now? NO..it means they are receiving all of the attention until the media gets bored and moves on to some other breed..like cane corsos or dobermans (all over again) or pugs...gawd who knows what breed is next on their target list...

________________-

to all the people that really have nothing good to say about pitbulls..like uhm ehem oriondw...here, watch this video..if it doesn't open your eyes at least maybe it'll make you pull your head out of your butt and see some form of light... *rolls eyes*

http://www.pitbullproject.ca/video.htm

-
-
-

rottiegirl · Nov 12, 2005

Excuse me? Nature over nurture? You should really explain that one, because you do not make sence! Whether you like it or not, genetics does play a big role in a dogs temperment. Yes you can make a dog mean even if the dog is bred correctly, and you can also take a badly bred dog and make him into a well behaved animal. But do you really think the novice owner could easily do that? No! That is where the problem comes from. I said before that the way you treat a dog also determines how the dog will act, but you seemed to miss that! If you get a pup from a responsible owner, chances are that it would be way easyer to make that dog into a well behaved animal, other than getting one from a horrible breeder. I am not saying that all fighting pits are mean and unstable, I am saying that alot of them are. I am not sure why you are arguing with me.

I never said they are in the group, I said that they are working dogs, all terriers are working dogs. I am fully aware that they are in the terrier group! I cant believe that you are actually saying that pits do not need a drive to work well. I can guarantee you that if you get a pit with a high drive and wants to please its owner, that dog would do 100% better than a dog that just wants to please. Ask any reputable breeder, of any terrier breed. You do not know what you are talking about. A dog that has a drive will work itself to injury, a dog that just wants to please will not. I dont think you fully understand what a drive is. People bred a high drive into all terriers for a reason! I can assure you that it sure in the hell didnt happen on accident! Did you know that people who train bomb sniffing and drug sniffing dogs, pick out the puppy or dog who is more interested in a tennis ball than a dog who is just interested in people? The dog who is interested in the ball has a higher drive thus it will work better and harder.

Amstaffer · Nov 12, 2005

rottiegirl said:

Wow I thought everyone knew about the Psychology debate of Nature vs Nuture. If you have ever had a Psy 101 course you will know that nature= genetics or breeding. Nuture = how you are raised and the sum of your experiences. Do a google search on Nature vs Nuture and you should be able to get the info you need. Maybe that will make more sense to you.

About prey drive, There is a difference between prey drive and drive to work. I have seen pits that can out pull malamutes twice their size who have a strong desire to please their owner (working drive if you wish to call it that) but have zero interest in chasing things (ie tennis balls, cats etc)

As far as working dogs (which not all terriers are) most pits and amstaffs are not working dogs. Most are companion and show dogs.

The number one thing that Pit and Amstaff breeders talk about in their dogs now a days is good temperment, calmness and stablity. Many breeder who I talked to before I got my male, like to brag about how there dogs like cats and were good with other household pets. If you are talking to Pit and Amstaff breeders who are talking about Prey Drive as being important....beware, especially if they mention gameness too.

I know exactly what prey drive is. Prey drive doesn't equal energy or work drive. As rottiegirl you should know that many Rotts don't have High Prey drives but have lots of drive to work and please their owner. I had a female rott who had no interest in chasing small animals or tennis balls but still had very strong work drive in obedience and protection work.

I notice your post started to focus on prey drive and have gradually shifted toward drive. Please don't confuse the two. In any event if prey drive was what made a dog dangerous...border collies would be killing twenty people a week in the US alone.

Novice owners, well all a Pitbull or Amstaff needs is a loving, firm, consistent owner with a little common sense who has done some research but then again that is what most breeds require. Would I suggest a pit or amstaff or a first time owner, no but mostly because of the prejudice they will face not because of the breed itself. I have had both Amstaffs and Rotts and I would say the Rott needs a more experience owner than the Amstaff. (No slamming Rotts because I love the breed I just switched because of size and lifespan issues)

The reason I am in disagreement with you and other posting here is that I am trying to educate people to the fact that pitbull are what YOU the owner make them. If you wish to have a dangerous weapon they will use their impressive physical tools to make you "happy" but if you want a good, loyal, LOVING, comical to the point of silly, companion then they will be that also.

Never underestimate a dog who "just" wants to please you. Dogs have given their lives for just that reason.

Vega · Nov 12, 2005

A person who is not involved with canines will obviously be reserved towards Pit bulls. Is it correct? Sure, it’s only natural for you to be apprehensive of something that has a reputation for being dangerous. Don’t be surprise or amazed really if someone would rather keep their distance from a particular animal that they haven’t had the opportunity to familiarize with. You can’t expect everyone in this world to be canine enthusiasts; a lot of people have more important things to be concerned with.

You can accept the study conducted by the Human Society where Golden/Lab Retrievers are more likely to bite then Pit Bulls. However, an attack from a Pit Bull is going to be far more devastating then a Retriever type. There is a good reason why they are excellent fighters. They have some powerful attacking capabilities with an immense amount of stamina to keep them going. In dog fights, Pit Bulls are able to keep going and going while their opponent is breaking down from exhaustion. These attacking advantages are not good for the person being attacked. It’s these advantages the give the Pit Bull a higher fatal attack percentage.

Another thing we need to examine is why a lot of people even consider getting a Pit Bull. Lets face it folks, a lot of people like the toughness of a Pit and its powerful attacking capabilities. These are attractive features that this particular canine has; it falls into the whole macho thing with male humans. With this in mind, it’s no wonder why we have these unfortunate stories of fatal dog attacks from this breed. As a result, I strongly believe that only certain qualified people should be owners of this breed. This breed can be the friendliest creature but it needs the right owners.

pitbulliest · Nov 12, 2005

Vega said:

I agree......

and this is exactly why we need to punish the deed, and not the breed.

Saje · Nov 12, 2005

Amstaffer said:

That's not even college stuff. I think we learned that in junior high. It's pretty basic. Even I learned it and I usually had my nose in some unrelated book

Amstaffer · Nov 12, 2005

Vega said:

You stats on fatal dog attacks are somewhat flawed because over 25 different breeds are included in the "pitbull" name. Also there is an awful lot of mistake identification of breeds. I know of one case where a male lab mauled a family child and it was listed in the paper as a pitbull....right beneath the picture what was an obivous Yellow Lab...stocky but pure lab.

As far as qualified owners go, I don't think unqualified people should own any breed of dog. It is the Macho, Apathic owner that is a danger to any breed. If I had my way you should have to get a license to own any dog (Pitbull or Rat terrier) To get this license you should have to prove you have the ability and desire to take care of a dog. An evaluation at the local human society should also be required. But that is a whole different thread.

Your comments about the Pitbull's abilities to fight are true but it is only relevant if they have a bad owner to encourage this behavior.

Your comments on people be afraid of dogs....Is it ok? Sure. This is the same logic that make racism acceptable. With your same logic you use there it is ok not to hire blacks, rent to blacks etc.... Before you say "oh that crazy!" Think about it, you say because of their reputation, well if you watch the news they would have you believe that most black people are criminals and are dangerous...thus they have a "Bad Reputation" No of course this "Reputation" is absurd and part of the culture of fear in the USA...but don't get me started on that.

Vega · Nov 12, 2005

Amstaffer said:

There is a margin of error but not significantly enough to dismiss several reports from different organizations that conduct fatal dog attack statistics. *I know* a Pit Bull that attacked a man and it was mistaken for a chow mix. It works either way, really. There is too much evidence to dismiss the Pit Bull of holding the greatest percentage of fatal attacks.

Amstaffer said:

Yes, you’re deviating to another matter but you didn’t get my message. You see we have some domestic canines that require a more experienced owner such as the Brazilian Mastiff. Not everyone is suited for this specific breed and requires a particular owner who has a good understanding of the canine. In other words, a qualified person should be allowed to posses such a powerful canine that is capable of inflicted devastating damage to a being. A person who likes to appear macho will not foster such a dangerous canine if his restricted to non-powerful canines such as chihuahuas, miniature pinscher, greyhounds, dachshunds etc…

A Pit Bull owner should meet certain criteria’s so the animal will be raised properly and not be a threat to society. It would be a higher level of qualification then the requirements for raising a mellower canine like the golden retriever.

Amstaffer said:

It’s relevant whenever a Pit Bull attacks whether bad owner or not. So far it seems the majority of the time fatal dog attacks are the result of bad ownership. Those advance fighting capabilities never go away and are applied when in attack mode.

Amstaffer said:

I don’t know what channel you’re watching that portrays blacks as rebellious and dangerous, this seems like its coming from you. Racism doesn’t necessarily mean complete ignorance but could be the result of much research and observation. If you hear the African Hussian Beatle is dangerous, aren’t you going to be cautious when you run into one? It wouldn’t be intelligent to treat it like a June Beatle. It’s natural, better to be safe then sorry. Unfortunately, since we have a lot of bad American Staffordshire Pit Bull owners, you can’t be sure it which ones were raised properly.

(Yes its a fictional beatle)

Amstaffer · Nov 12, 2005

Vega said:

It doesn't go either way, I bet you never have a Pitbull mistaken for a Lab, if there is a dog attack most people assume it is either a pitbull or a Rott.

Vega said:

Well, in any event my main point in this whole thread that it is the owners at fault for bad pits. Dog in general are haunted by bad owners, it just gets more news when a pitbull goes bad because of abuse.

Vega said:

Why should there be levels of qualification? Idiots shouldn't own any dog...have them buy ant farms.

Vega said:

I would say VAST majority. If you goes to dog shows (I have been to many) you never see Amstaffs fighting or attacking anyone and they are mostly entact males....which are the ones said to be the most dangerous. If it was their nature to attack and they were more dangerous wouldn't this happen all the time?

Vega said:

First of all, if you are implying that I am racist....I am Biracial, and my wife and kids are black so don't go there. What station are you watching? Most media, movies and TV shows make Blacks appear to mostly criminals. Heck even in sports they love nothing more than make black athletes look like thugs. You see it in music as well, who do the music companies push to the kids? Positive black role models...nope they push Ganster rappers, because it feeds the countries need to have a boogie man to fear.

You had to read the stories about the "looters" in N.O. after Katrina. In pictures with black people they were always called "Looters" if White people were photographed taking stuff they were call "people searching for food". If you honestly don't see racism in the media then I want to move to your world.

Once again I am getting off topic, if you can't see the similarities in the hysteria about pitbulls and the stereotypes of blacks in the American media I guess my writing here is in vain.

But I will try to put it like this, Both Human Criminal (of any color) are usually a product of there environment and result of their upbringing. Dogs are the same way (Pitbull or anybreed.)

What is your main point? At the end of your post, you say "better to be safe than sorry.....because you don't know how they were raised" are you implying they should be outlawed? I hope I read this wrong and you are just saying there should be restrictions on who owns them, which for the dogs sake I would be fine with restrictions because fewer dogs would be abused; but I wouldn't like to see pitbull singled out, those restrictions should apply to all dogs.

Also what is the point of listing fatal dog attacks stats as part of you signature? Just wondering.

pitbulliest · Nov 13, 2005

Vega - "There is too much evidence to dismiss the Pit Bull of holding the greatest percentage of fatal attacks."

Can we get some of that evidence? And please don't just post an article where a pitbull attacked another dog...because I can post ten more where the pitbull turned out to be a lab or collie mix...lets get some real facts and stats for a change...hmm?

gaddylovesdogs · Nov 13, 2005

I always wonder when I hear about a pit bull attack whether it's really a pit or not...labs can easily be mistaken for pits because of their wide muzzles.

pitbulliest · Nov 13, 2005

yeah..and they usually are

Amstaffer · Nov 13, 2005

The bad thing is they are only mistaken for pitbulls when they do something bad.....if the do something good, you can bet everyone with say...oh nice lab

pitbulliest · Nov 13, 2005

And what's even more pathetic is that the general public behave like sheep and just follow whatever the media or some dimwit politician tells them....they'll stare wide eyed as if they're looking up at a God..it makes me sick...when the pitbulls were banned here....whenever you asked someone why they had a problem with them, their only reply was "because of all the stuff you hear on the news" or "because Michael Bryant says they're ticking time bombs"...most of the people have never even SEEN or had contact with a pitbull, and 99% wouldn't even be able to identify one...

Hmm...I guess using your own brain, doing your own research, spending time with the dogs and finding out for yourself just isn't an option...a big box in my living room telling me so is the answer..

ok anywho..*steps off of soap box*

gaddylovesdogs · Nov 13, 2005

Yes most people who are against pit bulls haven't even met them....how can you say they're mean if you don't even know what they are like? I have met one or two pits and they were extremely nice dogs. When I leaned down to pet a female, she looked up at me with her pretty eyes and licked me on the chin...yeah, right...she was gonna eat me right up, I could tell.

oriondw · Nov 13, 2005

--- please repost. Made an error

Dixie · Nov 13, 2005

OK, now this has really got me a but upset about Labradors getting mixed with pit bulls. I have inserted a pic of a black Labrador alongside a black pit bull of the same age- now you tell me the difference.

Also pit bulls tend to be much more stout, and have very good muscle tone in comparison to a Lab.

Also a pit bull has shorter, less floppy ears. A Labs muzzle is longer than that of a pit bull.

Also a Labrador a much friendler towards other dogs than a pit bull. A pit bull tends to be dog aggressive by nature unless otherwise trained.

Please never confuse a Labrador Retriever to that of a Pit Bull. If you know your breeds you can tell them apart.

-Dix

pitbulliest · Nov 13, 2005

dixie...yeah but that's you and me..what about the GENERAL PUBLIC that confuses the two all the time?

oriondw..sorry about your last post..I accidently edited it instead of quoted...please repost...my mistake.

Changing views on pits, one person at a time

Ninja Dog

New Member

Active Member

rottiegirl

Guest

Active Member

Rottweiler

Active Member

Island dweller

Active Member

Rottweiler

Active Member

Active Member

no touchy

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

no touchy

user not active

The ***** idiot

Active Member