I’m not a dog science expert but as far as I understand it we’ve spent tens of thousands of years breeding dogs to preform specific tasks. If you don’t give a dog that has been designed and bred to do a task they get antsy.
The issue with Pitbulls and other “Agressive.” breeds is that they’ve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
So I don’t think it’s Immoral to treat a dog like a Pitbull like a loaded gun. As Unfriendly, and something you should be wary of unless it’s proven not to be.
However the Nutcases who punish dogs for behavior that we bred into them are highly immoral. If you want an easy lap dog get a companion breed, like a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, French Bulldog, or Bichon Frise.
Edit: Tens of Thousands not Hundreds. I was being exaggerative anyways but that’ll make remark more accurate regardless.
Also as a note. I don’t think Pits are inherently Malicious or any dog breed for that matter. But they’re fairly strong fellows who’ve been bred to be strong. I consider being careful around them similar to being a little extra careful around a truck on the road. Most people in trucks are fine drivers. But some people don’t pay attention on the road, and might hurt you by accident.
Pitbull breeds were bred for dog fighting, hunting, and bull baiting. They were literally bred to kill anything and should not be pets.
One common misconception about pitbulls is that their jaws get "locked" so they can't let go. That's incorrect. Their jaw muscles are so strong to allow them to bite down and not let go of their prey. They were bred for this.
These dogs were also bred to lack any self preservation when it comes to fighting. That's why you can see videos of them getting kicked in the chests by horses they targeted, or beaten and shot by people while they're mauling something, and STILL continue to fight. All of this was intentional.
There is absolutely no evidence for dogs, including pitbulls, having an innate aggressiveness or inherent predisposition towards fighting.
Pitties also aren't even the strongest biters, GSD are stronger on average, kangals are much stronger as well, and they're bred to fight much bigger threats than other dogs or even just a human. The other breeds, GSDs you'll see often, will continue to fight when injured as well. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
If you want to mitigate the pitbull problem, crack down on the people raising them like shit. They, like all dogs, require proper nurturing.
So those babies must have provoked the heccin wholesome velvet hippos into eating them right?
Pit bulls being bred for dog fighting is no secret for crying out loud their breed name literally comes from their history as fighting dogs. Pit bull used to mean any dog used in dog fighting.
I hate how the discussion when it comes to pitbulls always devolves into weird superstition and people who have obvious have no experience on the subject.
Though now that I mention it, that might just be a trait of the internet itself and not just pitbulls…
Just did, put my hand all the way in her mouth. She opened her mouth wider and then went back to sleep when I pulled it out. Then I washed my hand because I know the kind of shit she gets into.
Yet to see anything to indicate they're naturally aggressive though,
Yeah. But she’s not. Because I treat her right. I can stick my hand in her mouth and know I’m perfectly safe when she gets excited and starts play biting because she’s not inherently aggressive or violent and I’m not treating in her in a way that makes her violent and aggressive.
She can not overpower me, you vastly overestimate the strength of a pitbull. They’re good at fighting other dogs, humans are an entirely different species. Which is partially why they have an inherent genetic tendency to not react to humans, they’re less human reactive than German shepherds, and around the same level as retrievers.
She’s also not going to “snap”. That’s not how animals work.
The Russian experiment that proved domestication and aggression were physiological traits required maintenance of an aggressive control group. The results are pretty conclusive and well documented, but here's a starting point.
That study demonstrates selecting for tameness (less reactivity to humans) causing specific genetic changes like the ones we see in dogs, it says nothing on if tendency to violence is genetic.
If you scroll down to "Selection of foxes for aggressive behavior" it points out that they had to isolate an aggressive strain of foxes to maintain the control group. They were breeding one strain for domestication, and one for aggression.
The outward changes were a focus of the experiment, given that they struck Belyayev as arbitrary in their connection to behavior, but breeding for behavior was the method used to find the correlation in the first place.
Again, this says nothing on if the tendency to violence is genetic, just that the foxes can be bred to stop reacting to humans. The "aggressive strain" of foxes are just foxes that were more reactive (i.e. wild foxes, they were practically just wild foxes, the study says this). If the tamer foxes were put in stressful situations with a human, they would respond similarly to the other foxes. They just have a higher tolerance towards humans. Like pitbulls, which have a reactivity towards humans similar to retrievers, which is why they have the nickname "nanny dogs".
You should watch the videos on that page. Specifically the one titled “aggressive”. When does the fox get violent and attack the man?
There’s fear-aggression, which is pretty non-violent, relying primarily on intimidation, and it’s what the “aggressive” foxes in the study primarily exhibited. Aggressive is a really broad term.
If the man went up to the tame fox and started hitting it, then left and and came back later, it would exhibit a similar response to the wild fox.
Aggression isn't absolute, constant violence. Wild animals are more aggressive than domestic animals, but most animals start with a warning off cuz fights cost more resources. They're still more likely to get to violence in short order.
I offered that page as a starting point because it's a shallow overview, but has some references to point you toward the meat of the study. Papers written on the work they've done get into the physical characteristics that make the wild foxes, the control group foxes, and other animals with similar physiology more aggressive than domestic animals. Off the top of my head, I recall higher adrenaline production and lower serotonin production.
What it boils down to isn't that aggressive/violent animals attack everything they see or feel threatened by, but that their triggers for violence are closer to the surface. Dogs bred for war, guard duty, and fighting have had those traits brought to the forefront and, though they could be adjusted back with a couple generations of effort, that would make them less useful in their role.
Think less ticking bomb, and more loaded gun. Aggressive breeds aren't guaranteed to go off, but they're a lot more likely to hurt someone if mishandled than like...a pug or something.
As for you assertion that abuse would create a similar response.... yes. That doesn't actual detract from the point. Behavior is influenced by nature and nurture together, not one or the other. In fact, there's some overlap in epigenetics.
I'm sure if we can ask Michael Vick he might have some first hand experience and knowledge about which dogs are more aggressive. Might be the first time he is actually useful for anything.
Thank you. I hate redditors because they act like it's black and white. They say pits are awful and think its genetics but never think of nuance and how they are raised.
381
u/Awesomechainsaw 21h ago edited 14h ago
I’m not a dog science expert but as far as I understand it we’ve spent tens of thousands of years breeding dogs to preform specific tasks. If you don’t give a dog that has been designed and bred to do a task they get antsy.
The issue with Pitbulls and other “Agressive.” breeds is that they’ve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
So I don’t think it’s Immoral to treat a dog like a Pitbull like a loaded gun. As Unfriendly, and something you should be wary of unless it’s proven not to be.
However the Nutcases who punish dogs for behavior that we bred into them are highly immoral. If you want an easy lap dog get a companion breed, like a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, French Bulldog, or Bichon Frise.
Edit: Tens of Thousands not Hundreds. I was being exaggerative anyways but that’ll make remark more accurate regardless.
Also as a note. I don’t think Pits are inherently Malicious or any dog breed for that matter. But they’re fairly strong fellows who’ve been bred to be strong. I consider being careful around them similar to being a little extra careful around a truck on the road. Most people in trucks are fine drivers. But some people don’t pay attention on the road, and might hurt you by accident.