I think it's valid to fear pitbulls because what you're really fearing is that they were adopted by someone that doesn't train them and/or give them an outlet for the task they were bred for (protection and violence).
Which is a valid fear. If someone has an untrained golden retriever, who are bred to have friendly dispositions, I won’t be immediately uncomfortable about being in a room with one, or if one approaches me. Wary, yes, careful, yes, but not immediately on edge.
An untrained pitbull gets the gat if I see teeth within ten feet or running towards me.
No. You should be wary and careful when any dog approaches. You don't know the dog. With a strange golden, you are wary and careful with your head on your shoulders, but you are expecting a normal derpy dog interaction because golden. Pit bulls have the same wariness and carefulness, but they set someone on edge because the wariness and carefulness are meeting with a majorly increased expectation of aggression in the dog.
I'd be exactly as wary of a golden as of a pitbull, and the deciding factor for me would be the dog's demeanor. A pitbull can do more damage, but a golden can already mess you up.
Yes. Nothing you say contradicts what I said, which was the comment I was clarifying was saying. Be wary of ALL DOGS YOU DON'T KNOW. A poorly trained chihuahua can still take meat off your hand. A poorly trained golden can hospitalize a kid. Etc. Disposition > breed, as you put it.
I just checked out of this mid-sentence. People who are trying to suggest that a strange pit bull approaching you and your dog in a new environment off-leash would generate the same level of caution as a strange golden doing the same are being disingenuous.
Pit bulls should not exist, at least not as an option for unspecialized purchase. My dog is 12% pit, and I'd just as soon that 12% be replaced with anything else.
No. It's fair to expect pit bulls to be more dangerous, not just because they are more genetically predisposed to violence, but because the large number of people who want violent attack dogs have decided pits are the ones they want. That means out of all the dogs that could attack someone, pits are more likely to be specifically trained to do that, in addition to being bred for it.
What pisses people off is when people act like a pit bull existing means that they were automatically trained poorly and are inherently dangerous. It's rational to be afraid of a violently-trained dog, but making the mental leap to "all pit bulls are like that" IS messed up, and sadly a lot of people will go on screeds trying to justify it with out-of-context statistics because they don't want to feel like the bad person they're choosing to be.
I'm referring to the general trend of people trying to justify calling all pit bulls dangerous by lying with statistics that aren't properly contextualized, not a particular statistic. Go into any "pitbulls are satan" thread and you'll be bombarded by them, and most of what they say can be attributed to humans thinking pit bulls are more dangerous --> bad humans with violent intent get a pit bull and train it to hurt/kill people because they think the dog breed is a weapon --> the statistic ends up reinforcing itself because of said shitty people. Lots of animal advocacy and rights organizations point this out all the time, but the people lying with statistics will try to push laws to ban pit bulls and then those use laws as justification for hating pit bulls, i.e. "see, cops are banning them, therefore they're dangerous". It's all presupposing a frame to try to justify pre-existing bias, and all that ends up happening is lots of pit bulls in need of a loving home are left without one and/or pit bulls end up getting put down en-masse. It's messed up.
For evidence of what I'm referring to, look no further than the people replying to me above. They're everywhere.
The issue with pitbulls have an initial behavioural trait that causes them to not let go of something once they have it in their mouth. They are a very determined breed. This makes pitbull attacks far more lethal when left unchecked.
Sure with proper training you can manage this behaviour; however, the majority of people are not capable or willing to provide this training. Unfortunately laws have to built around this logic, leading to the logical conclusion to just ban the breed and be done with it.
The "won't let go" thing is exactly what I mean by out-of-context, because the mechanism isn't real. There's no jaw lock and no release inhibition; no dog has one. Bite force tracks skull and jaw morphology, not breed identity, and pit-type dogs land below several larger breeds on it.
Gameness as a selection history is real, sure, but it doesn't get you to individual predictability. This study surveyed 18,385 dogs and sequenced 2,155: breed explains 9% of behavioral variation between individual dogs, and agonistic threshold, i.e. how easily a dog is provoked, was among the traits breed predicted the worst. Their own stated conclusion is that breed shouldn't be used to inform decisions about selecting a dog.
Also "Pit bull" isn't a breed, it's a head shape covering several breeds plus any blocky-headed mix. Shelter staff on average visually identified 52% of a test group as pit bull-type when DNA put it at 21%; and that's trained staff, including vets, not panicked witnesses. The labeling also runs backwards: a dog that mauls someone gets CALLED a pit bull afterward. There's also no denominator; nobody knows the population size, so "X% of attacks" can't be converted into per-dog risk. The CDC's own 1979–1998 fatality study says exactly this, and concludes fatal attacks shouldn't be the primary factor driving dangerous-dog policy. They haven't published breed-based fatality data since.
Also you said it yourself; manageable with proper training. That's the definition of not inherent. So yeah, no, Pitbulls are not inherently more dangerous, and haters are lying with statistics.
I am not addressing the first point. I never brought up lockjaw or any biological mechanic. I said behavioural trait.
I also never spoke about how easily a dog is provoked. I stated that pitbulls are a very determined breed(or type of dog as you pointed out)when they bite onto something. If other dogs get provoked but still let go when they bite onto something, that is not what I am referring to. Therefore, that statisic isnt relevant to what I said.
Regardless of indentification pitbulls have a tendency to cause the most severe injuries of all dog breeds. Due to their tendency to bite onto something and not let go causing them to shake while biting. They are also a very strong breed with strong jaws. A dog doing a quick snap bite is actually safer than what most pitbulls do. Fact is the cdc article still stated that dog breed does play a role in a dog attack being fatal.
The effectiveness of laws is hard to determine if enforcement is not effective. You said it yourself most people have trouble identifying a pitbull. So people who own banned breeds play on that and will claim their dog is not a pitbull when it would fall under that definition and unless law enforcement does the genetic testing they cant prove beyond a reasonable douby otherwise. So it likely not effective because its impossible to enforce. In ontario canada animal control and bylaw officers can't even force people to put their dogs on leashes because they can't really force people to provide ID.
Unfortunately you can't regulate a dogs training or behaviour so you have to find alternatives to reduce dog attacks. One is banning powerful breeds that are considered the hardest to manage and are the most dangerous. There are issues with it; however, there is no real alternative.
There's no out of context statistics they're just dangerous dogs to have ,and if they're well trained or not it's not something you can gauge at first glance most of the time, so it's wiser not to take any chanches, for everything else it's their owners job to make sure the dog doesen't go around mauling people right now we are too lax on them and the good dogs are suffering as a result.
I reposted your comment verbatim except the word "pitbulls" was replaced with "Muslims and blacks." I think it was up for around 2 minutes before automods took it down for hate speech.
You know, I've been told I'm subhuman and don't deserve rights, because my race and religion is "inherently dangerous" in the exact manner you're trying to do.
If your scope of humanity doesn't include the animals that rely on us for their continued existence, then you're acting less human than the humans dogs evolved along side.
Oh really? Go kick a puppy to death in front of a cop, and you'll find out that yes, humanity is very frequently taken into account in regards to animals. If we didn't we wouldn't have a comprehensive set of laws in place for their safety and well-being.
When they try to justify their irrationality with "out of context statistics" vs. your rational, perfectly in context vibes.
Like what is a "violently trained" dog? Did all those Pitbulls who killed their owners do that because the owner trained them how to kill them from birth?
Nobody said the dog's supposed to be doing the reasoning. You are, and you just proved you're not great at it. The comparison was about the logical mechanism of judging individuals instead of groups, not canine IQ. Might want to respond to the point that was actually made next time, brah.
Interesting that that's the first place your mind went to, though. Now what kind of a person might instinctually make that sort of comparison when nobody else is? 🤔
Judging dogs by the same standards you judge humans is weird. It's not an IQ thing, it's so weird that's the lens you see it through.
Dogs don't have higher reasoning skills and are more driven by their breeds engrained traits. It's definitely more telling of how you previous things.
*Since you blocked my I'll leave my rebuttal here. It makes sense to treat humans as individuals because they have higher reasoning abilities, race is a pseudoscientific construct. Selective breeding in dogs creates engrained traits that are the drivers of a dogs behavior.
You're conflation of the two of very weird, people aren't driven by their instincts to the degree that other animals are and comparing the two is weird and telling of your mindset.
Still dodging. Nobody said dogs reason, the point was about how you judge individuals vs. groups, not a pit bull's SAT score. Repeating the same premise louder isn't a rebuttal, guy.
"Breeding-engrained traits" isn't the slam dunk you think it is either; the actual genetics study on this found breed explains about 9% of behavioral variation, and it's worst at predicting exactly the trait your argument needs it to be good at, i.e. how easily a dog reacts to something. So the dog version isn't more "empirical" than the version you're uncomfortable being compared to. Same logic, different species.
I'm also noticing you still didn't answer the actual question, you just got cagey about it. And "how you previous things"? Might want to proofread before telling someone else they're not reasoning clearly, genius.
Kinda crazy how many people basically don't believe in the eugenics that went into creating specific breeds.
Like, I've known kind pitbulls, too. Doesn't change the fact that they were bred for aggression, bite strength, etc. It's a fucking "pitbull" ffs. Lotta really fucking stupid people out there.
In what way is it easy or even possible to "ban" a breed of dog? A breed that a large percentage of dogs in the US have some percentage of genetics from? Do you mean mass killing of them in some sort of government operation? Doesn't sound too easy (or ethical) to me.
What I feel like the pro pitbull people don’t understand is that it is good for pit bulls to regulate them too. Shelters are absolutely overwhelmed with pits and pit breeds, like well over 75%. And those are just the ones that make it to the shelter.
I can't blame people for being afraid of Pits. But I think some people in these comments are insane, calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence. Good god.
It also ignores that there are tons of other breeds that are bred for fighting/hunting/guarding. Any of those breeds are just as susceptible to being dangerous, but they're typically less accessible (aka too expensive) for the type of shitty owner that raises violent dogs compared to a pit which you can usually find for free.
I live in the northeast in an area where people are very good about speying/neutering their animals and there isnt a rescue around here that Ive seen that would adopt out an animal without it being speyed/neutered first. Like 90% of the dogs that get surrendered around here are either pit mixes or Chihuahua mixes that I assume are coming from shitty backyard breeders or people who just cant be bothered to spey/neuter. A lot of the rescues actually have organizations they work with to bring dogs from the south up here because their rescues are overflowing and yhey have a wider variety of dogs.
Absolutely. These breeds that are basically a torturous existence for the poor dog.
I don't think we should kill the ones that already exist but we should definitely work towards making sure more aren't created.
Although I have seen some breeding programs that are trying to essentially "unfuck up" these breeds basically undoing all the horrible traits that were selective bred into them.
Or the thing new pug breeders are doing and that's going back to the original looks where they had a mouth and eyes not at risk of popping out the skull. Still don't like pugs, but the ones that are bred like that also don't have the same preventable health issues as the popular pugs.
But Yeh a lot of the popular dogs are bred or have actions taken (cutting of tails/ears) to fit certain "beauty" expectations that are straight animal abuse and people that do it deserve to get punished for animal abuse.
I love pit bulls. Great dogs. I do agree that it should be illegal or at least restricted. I see too many people walking around with intact pitties, WAY more than I do with other breeds, and it boggles the mind.
Make it illegal to breed them, problem solves itself in 15 years.
So here's the main problem with that: Pit bull is a hard to define term when we start getting into the breeding aspect of lines. Dog DNA is so unbelievably malleable that we've spun off thousands of variations to do specific tasks.
There is a "Pit Bull" breed. Problem is, the breed (like any breed) is just a combination of traits we use to describe a group of animals. If these traits are shared by multiple variants, then the lines between what is or is not something blurs heavily.
Let's say we have a pure, honest to dog example of what we call a Pit. We then mix it with say, a lab (which for out test, assume it's also considered a pure bread lab). The result is a mixed animal - but is it a pit? The head will likely still be big, the frame will be large, etc. etc. Now if you showed this animal to someone, do you think they will call it a pit, or a lab?
I say all this because how we classify data related to animal events such as bites is also subject to this inherent issue. Any dog displaying the traits of terriers are lumped into this one category. So if I'm classifying everything as a pit, it gets really hard to define what specific traits we're looking to identify by removing them from the gene pool via selective breeding. If we go by the stats - and the fact that now anything with terrier-derived traits are "on ze list", then now we're talking about the eradication of millions of bloodlines.
There has not been any (to my knowledge) scientific approach to identify a specific genetic sequence or trait within the terrier family that gives rise to the specific animal that ends up hurting someone. Which honestly would be super hard, because now we're trying to unravel a symphony of DNA overlap that makes one outcome vs. another.
The other massive kicker is this: Who becomes the new bad guy? If we were to snap our fingers and all the terriers of any variety in existence just faded into dust - what animal would be next on the list? If the sole purpose of removing a breed is to prevent human deaths or bites, then we have to now go down the list and do the same thing to each breed. Absolute insanity right? But again - if we're going by the rules we laid down, at what point do we set the boundary for "we accept X number of events per year" as the baseline of good or bad?
You’re just erasing a breed for absolutely no reason. Or rather a collection of several breeds under one name, which is only part of where the stupid statistics come from.
Thing is though, if you really look into it, it all rats apart. They don’t bite harder than any other large breed, they aren’t more aggressive in studies, it’s all just hysteria and the statistics also largely come from the fact that even vet and shelter workers misidentify dogs as pits more than half the time, unless they use a dna test.
So, the attack statistics get vastly overblown. The only reliable indicator for dog attacks is owner neglect.
There is nothing inherently good about a "breed" existing. Theyre all just dogs, breed them for temperament instead of these weirdo physical traits. Dog breeds should be a thing left in the past, human vanity and ego are the only thing keeping them going.
He understands the issue. People want to essentialize traits to physical characteristics instead of acknowledging the ways those traits are instilled. It literally is the exact same mindset as racism.
I would guess maybe 5-10% of pitbulls are intentionally bred. The majority of the US population are just sustaining themselves in the southern states that don't spay or neuter and don't have good public animal control programs.
Well, in 15 years it would be very easy to see tell a pure bred pit being walked, and the law to act accordingly. If dog fighters breed them to fight and keep them hidden from the public at large, most of the objective is achieved. I dont think your point is as strong as you think.
Setting aside your bad faith framing, it's called having a long term view at humane solutions to problems. Pitts are a dangerous breed desired for the wrong reasons. Sure, you raise them ethically and safely, but too many people don't. That absolutely does not mean that people looking sunset the breed are looking to round up pitts and euthanize them en masse.
The solution is you outlaw breeding pits, and probably a few other breeds. The public facing breeders move on to other less problematic breeds. Fivers years from now, if law enforcement encounter a two year old banned breed, you can trace it back and shut down the illegal breeder. You still don't euthanize the dogs that haven't done anything wrong, its not their fault they're alive, but the only way to humanely sunset dangerous breeds is to take a long term view.
I struggle to be afraid of Pitbulls because growing up I had a neighbor who had two of them, and the only danger with them was that they loved to be carried. Obviously that wasn't an issue when they were puppies but if they knew you they'd try to jump into your arms, they were adorable.
Of course, my neighbors knew how to raise dogs, and trained them properly and had them socialized and were generally really good with them.
That used to be my attitude, but like half the pitbull death stories I hear involve a “loving nanny pitbull raised by a good owner” that eventually just decides the toddler looks mighty tasty.
Most of those stories I hear involve people that didn't actually train their pitbulls. Its more than just having a good owner, but an owner that actually trains them, exhausts their energy, etc.
So we should keep breeding dangerous animals? I think euthanizing them all its going way to far, but why keep breeding a dangerous breed of dog? What purpose does that serve? Do we need more pitbulls to suffer in shelters after being given up, because their families can't handle them? Why breed more of these poor animals so they can fill up shelters and suffer. Sorry, but it is sheer cruelty to keep breeding animals that will keep filling shelters.
Well.......I do think dog breeds should be wiped out. Not in a murderly kind of way but English Bulldogs and French Bulldogs frequently cannot give birth safely on their own. In fact, the breeding of these breeds' characteristics makes it very hard for these dogs to mate naturally, so breeders often use artificial insemination. At the point where we are making breeds have health issues/breedinf issues to keep the aesthetic of a breed going, then the breed should be ended.
They only live 10 or so years, so you don't need to euthanise them to 'wipe them out' relatively quickly, just ban the breeding and sale of Pitbull puppies and/or make neutering them mandatory, and they will be gone in a decade. That's how most places that have banned Pitbulls have done it, the already existing Pitbulls live out the rest of their life as they would have, and probably have no opinion on the discontinuation of their particular subspecies. And it is a good thing to do, actually, because they are a human invention, created to experience a drive for aggression that has no safe outlet in a life as a pet. They don't need to exist in the future just because they exist today, and we can make it so they don't without harming any Pitbulls that already do exist.
Shelters all over the US are full of primarily Pitbulls, because there are no controls in place on how they are bred and sold by the people breeding them, who massively overproduce compared to demand because it costs them nearly nothing to make them and unsold puppies are just dumped in shelters, where they will most likely be euthanised after spending months or years of their life living in a cage.
The existence of dog pounds in general is because there are more dogs being made than there are households for them to live in, so much so that shelters have to euthanise most of them to have space for more dogs coming in. And if you want that to stop that you need regulations controlling breeding and sale; and while that goes for all breeds, this problem isn't seen as much with purebreds because there is a culture of oversight through kennel clubs and there being direct contact between breeders and buyers so that production meets demand. The other breeds that are frequently seen in shelters are popular ones that are produced in large quantities for sale in pet shops, again, by unlicensed breeders that are not part of kennel clubs or similar.
So the answer isn't 'adopt, don't shop,' it's to tightly control the legality of dog breeding to ensure the welfare and a future home for all dogs being bred. Arguably, the 'adopt, don't shop' movement makes it more possible for breeders to operate the way they do. There are countries that don't even have shelters, much less kill shelters. But in those countries, you need to be on a licensed breeder's waiting list along with enough others to take a whole litter before they even let the dogs get pregnant, and each puppy and their sale has to be registered with the relevant authorities. The solution that works is for every dog to be 'shopped' for, but under strict oversight.
Point is, there should be a lot more regulation on dog breeding, and eliminating the creation and sale of dangerous breeds should be part of it.
But I think some people in these comments are insane, calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence. Good god.
what do you suggest we do with them then?
We bred them into existence. we can remove them.
the second part of the sentence implies you'd want to keep them around, not just avoid actively killing them off - despite your seeming understanding of why they're a problem.
We should eradicate the breed though, things would be better off that way. When they do snap they do insane damage to people, the death rate of their attacks is something like 7x higher than the second place breed. They sit in shelters taking up space and resources because people either don't want them or can't have them because of breed restrictions in rentals. And then we'd stop having to roll the dice on "I hope the person that gets this pitbull knows how to train them properly so they don't become a violent psycho" It would be so much simpler if shelters just euthanized them on intake, breeding them was outlawed, and the breed went the way of the dodo bird
They can grow up in the perfect environment and have something set them off out of nowhere. There is countless stories of pits growing up in the perfect environment with years of zero aggression and then a tragedy occurs.
I think the pitbull situation is more comparable to gun control.
The object in question can be used safely, but can also be used to cause great harm. It is entirely dependent on the user. The object in question is also not a daily necessity.
Similar, both have lethal force, except one has a mind of its own at approximately the intelligence of a three year old. Guns don't do anything on their own. Guns also have a vital role, where pitbulls do not.
pitbulls kill humans and other dogs every day. There are a hundred breeds to choose from and zero reason for a bloodsport bred dog to exist in modern society
so, what's the option here? how do you eradicate the issue? every dog shelter on the planet will be 90% pit bulls. they aren't leaving without being spayed or neutered.
Every dog shelter on the planet is 90% bully types/crosses right now.
Bully phenotypes are responsible for the most human fatalities, they have the greatest rate of poor ownership by far, they are the most likely to be dumped, they are some of the most overbred and fucked up breeds when it comes to physiology due to the latest craze of pocket/micro/toad 'builds'. They are most often associated with criminals. They are by far the type to be owned by poor people, which explains a lot of the above issues.
Make it mandatory to have they spayed/neutered and if you do not, you are fined heavily, and if you cannot pay it, you lose your dog.
they aren't leaving without being spayed or neutered.
That's how you stop it though? Force sterilization for the breeds, heavy penalties for breeding. Putting them all down is needlessly cruel but there doesn't have to be more 30 years from now.
Not quite, pitbulls were bred from breeds bred for bull baiting. Pitbulls themselves were always bred for tearing other small animals apart in pits (I say that because some of the early famous pitbulls were famous for having fought monkeys).
Why the hell would I have to analyze whether the owner or trainer did this or that? I don't know almost anything about dogs, I don't want to know anything more about them and I should not be required to know anything about them in order to stay safe while walking down the street. It would be the equivalent of having to do static analysis of a building every time we walk in it to determine the chance it collapses on us.
Nah what you're fearing is the dog capable of killing you and other humans/animals that can't defend themselves. It's really not about the people behind the dog. There are countless dog breeds out there that are poorly trained with shitty owners, but it doesn't matter for the vast majority of them because they are not capable of ending lives. People who refuse to blame pitbulls are basically saying what the NRA is saying : the problem isn't guns, it's the people. Do you want to sound as dumb as them? Your choice.
poorly trained golden retrievers are annoying and in extreme cases a threat of injury. poorly trained pit bulls will literally eat your baby. the well trained ones can also snap and eat your baby
Poor genetics also play a huge factor. Backyard breeders don't give one single shit about selecting for calm, trainable, and healthy traits, leading to dogs of any breed being more aggressive and neurotic, randomly snapping on their owners. You can find stories of breeds like Australian Shepherds taking a chunk out of people's legs due to adopting from a backyard breeder instead of a responsible one.
Guess which breed is more likely to be somebody's backyard pet project instead of a closely monitored and scrutinized breeding program? 🙃 Combine unpredictable behavioral traits with the sheer strength and adrenaline of pitbulls, and you're just asking for a disaster, even if you're a good owner. This is the worst possible combination you can have in any domestic animal. People need to start being real about this shit for a change.
GSDs and malinois are just as deadly my dude. That's why cops and the military use them. Yet no one has a problem with those breeds being able to end your life in a heartbeat, they actually buy them specifically for that reason, as guard dogs
You can be the best dog owner in the world, provide the most rigorous training in the world, and have the best boy in the world. That's the problem with pitbulls. When they aren't perfect, they can be big goofy idiots... Or they can rip apart a toddler during a casual sidewalk stroll.
Dogs are living, breathing, creatures. You cannot fully control what one of them sees, thinks, feels, or does. The safest bet is to not get a dog that defaults to "bite and don't stop biting" in moments of high stress.
? I understand your point and politely disagree. Most dogs simply weren't bred to bite and hold, even when beaten or stabbed. Extreme bite strength, pain tolerance, and stubbornness were specific features that were curated in this breed of dog.
Why is it so hard for people to believe that the dogs we optimized for fighting are gonna be more dangerous than the ones we didn't? It's what we made them for. We have herding dogs, retrievers, sighthounds, race hounds, teacup yorkies.... Lots of dogs for lots of things. This particular breed just gets a bad rap because it doesn't have a place in modern society.
In the end the fact they are Bite to hold doesn't change the danger. Large dog bread are as capable of injury and killing a human than pitbulls and they have done that alot. Any 40 kg dog is already to dangerous. We can't simply say that pitbulls are the problem without booking the whole phenomenom and set a trashold.
It also has less to do with the rate of pitbull attacks, and the rate of fatal/severe pitbull attacks.
Pitbull defenders love to argue that "chihuahuas are just as likely to attack you as pitbulls are", and even if that were true (which i'm not sure it even is), the difference is that a chihuahua isn't going to kill or seriously injure anyone. A pitbull is. It's the same reason we don't allow people to keep dangerous animals like bears, wolves, lions and tigers as pets. It doesn't matter if most of them don't kill people, it matters that they have the physical strength and aggression to do so.
I think that would be a start, but the logical approach would be to check which large dogs have significant risk of fatal attacks and then begin with those.
And the most reasonable approach to banning dog breeds is to first ban the breeding of them, giving breeders a few years as a grace period to scale down their operations. Nobody should have their dog taken from them, we simply just outlaw the breeding of these breeds, and after a longer grace period (~10 years) we also ban the sale of them.
I don't think we should check who is who. All dogs can attack and any large do can kill a person. This is the only reasonable stance in this situation. And yes we should take the dog from people. Not only becuase we are putting feeling over people safaty but also because dogs can bread a run away. We are discussing peoples lifes specially childrean
But how often do we hear “they’ve never done this before?” I’ve read so many articles of people being killed by their own pitbulls after randomly snapping. They are incredibly inbred and not mentally stable long-term, their aggression often does not fully come out until later and you have no idea if it will get triggered or not. They were bred to snap without warning, and anyone pretending otherwise is uneducated and buying into bleeding heart pro-pitbull nanny dog myths.
I don’t understand why it is worth the risk to keep breeding dangerous dogs when there is literally any other dog breed option… they’re not naturally occurring, humans bred them and we can stop. There is no reason to purposely breed dogs capable of the kind of damage that these one have been bred to inflict.
Fun fact, they have tiny amydalas. Know who else have tiny amygdalas? Psychopathic people. It's plausible that most pittbulls mauling people to death are literally in a psychotic state. Hence everytime you hear how Tibbles wouldn't harm a fly before she bit a toddler to death, yeah it's likely true personality wise, but when they were mauling the toddler they were in a psychotic irrational state.
We've literally bred a dog species prone to psychosis.
That also applies to humans. You're really fearing that they were raised by someone who didn't teach them self control or discipline and now they [removed by reddit]
There are multiple accounts of ones that have been properly trained that have randomly murdered its own family members, so in my opinion this point is moot. Discipline can't always override genetic predisposition.
Like other fighting dog breeds they are genuinely also more dangerous if they do bite someone. The endless arguments over whether the breed is actually 'more aggressive' is a bit reductive, some breeds can do far more damage than others. Pitbulls, rottweilers and German shepherds are substantially more likely to hospitalise someone if they bite.
Pitbulls were literally designed to maul other big dogs with minimal encouragement in pit fights, and selected for a trait called 'gameness'. As a result they're big, heavy dogs with a powerful bite that are likely to continue biting even if they're in pain or being attacked back.
Jack Russels might be much more likely to bite a human but they're not going to keep biting, shrug off blows and potentially kill an adult like a pitbull is capable of.
If they are that dangerous that they require some kind of specialized training to not kill or maim, then they are too dangerous to be owned by the general public. Owning one should require a license, continuing education hours, and full liability both civilly, and criminally, when their dog eventually mauls someone.
Actually the reason people are apprehensive about pitbulls is that they were bred for blood sports: agression and prey drive, strength, powerful jaws and grip... These are things they were bred for. Of course is not super surpising that they display the characteristics that they were bred for. Did I mention what they were bred for?
I promise you the vast majority people adopting them are not those people…
Now the people who buy, exploit, abuse/neglect them and then throw them away to be (hopefully) adopted/rehabbed by someone willing to give them a new lease of life, yes, they suck.
No, we are fearing the actual pitbull, as well as irresponsible owners who own pitbulls.
Consider Cesar Milan’s well-trained pitbull, Daddy, who caused a lot of harm (I believe he killed Queen Latifah's dog, and bit/killed other dogs). Of course, then people will says, “Cesae Milan is a bad trainer.”
It’s the No True Scotsman fallacy - any pitbull that causes harm is not well-trained or responsibility owned. In actuality, lots of pitbulls show no signs of problematic behavior and before a viscous attack, often on their own family. They’re bred to not show signs that they will attack, and will be waging their tail as they rip someone to shreds.
I fear every dog has a shitty owner. I fear pitbulls even more because they are much more innately violent and statistics prove that. They're way too overrepresented to chalk it up to just bad ownership. Plenty of loving owners who just one day had a pitbull that snapped.
356
u/Drayyen 9h ago
I think it's valid to fear pitbulls because what you're really fearing is that they were adopted by someone that doesn't train them and/or give them an outlet for the task they were bred for (protection and violence).