Page 18 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 373

Thread: OMG my next door neighbor has bought a red nosed pit bull!!!!

  1. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    I've known 5 different APBT's, not one of them was dog aggressive. I've known at least 10 SBT's, again not one that was dog aggressive. I have however encountered unknowns of both breeds that, while not exactly dog aggressive, were easily excited into a fight. I've also encountered Labradors, GSD's, American Bulldog, etc etc that were outright dog aggressive. Me thinks you need an education in the real world when it comes to these breeds.
    If this is true, then why all the warnings about untrustworthiness, from people who love the breed no less? These are people who spend all their time around many many pitbulls. Surely if the breed was as trustworthy as you say, the APBT lovers wouldn't warn against leaving them alone with other dogs? It's all very well to try and trump my argument with your anecdotal evidence, but you're not addressing the actual problem here. Even Greys4me and Choppachop admit that the breed has a problem with dog aggression.
    Last edited by Mosh; 12-14-2012 at 11:03 PM.

  2. #172

    Default

    I'll again point you to the book "The Lost Dogs", if you'd like, pm me your postal address and i'll send you a copy. Otherwise get yourself some real world experience .... that's it for me with this discussion

  3. #173
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE QLD
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosh View Post
    If this is true, then why all the warnings about untrustworthiness, from people who love the breed no less? These are people who spend all their time around many many pitbulls. Surely if the breed was as trustworthy as you say, the APBT lovers wouldn't warn against leaving them alone with other dogs? It's all very well to try and trump my argument with your anecdotal evidence, but you're not addressing the actual problem here. Even Greys4me and Choppachop admit that the breed has a problem with dog aggression.
    It is better to put out a warning than have those not as experienced with the breed become complacent which is when accidents happen. Dog Aggression is something you can expect when you own one of these breeds, it is not a death sentence and it does not mean every dog will display DA either. Generalising the breed is what has gotten it into the position its in now. It is like saying all people of x coloured skin are criminals, when they aren't.

    I'll again use my dogs as an example. Harley has aggression issues, it is most likely fear based aggression which is my fault because I was not aware of how important socialisation was when I got him. Bella is fine around other dogs but she will not be dominated and if she see's a fight between other dogs she will happily join in even though she has had nothing to do with it. Harley and Bella live quite happily together, they have never had a fight and I don't ever see them having one. He lives in his pack of two humans, another dog and a cat and his DA isn't causing him to suffer. He is able to be kennelled, visit the vet and do anything any other dog can do except go off leash... but I wouldn't do that anyway.

    I don't really understand why you say it is cruel to breed them. As far as I am aware BYB's don't really have any goals in breeding so I really doubt they are breeding for aggression. The way I would see it is they would get two nice looking dogs and put them together. Breeding for appearance yes, ignoring temperament yes but not necessarily breeding for dog aggressive dogs. Unless of course they are involved in dog fighting.

    There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face.

  4. #174
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VIC
    Posts
    949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greys4me View Post
    So lets go back to the dog fighting days, 3 men and 2 dogs are in a pit and all the time the dogs are fighting the owners have to be able to handle them, breaking them apart, cheering them on even getting face to face to the dogs, if this breed was unstable around humans do you think these people would be able to do this?

    If two APBTs are fighting you can just grab them and break it up, they do not have redirected aggression problems most dogs if hyped up or fighting if you try to grab them you are going to get nailed. Yes these dogs were bred for many generations to fight other dogs, but they were also bred for many generations to not EVER bite a human.

    It keeps on amazing me to what cruelty humans are capable of. Yet, here we are discussing restricted breeds law. Perhaps that's why these dogs are so controversial. They are a 'in our face' reminder of the worst in us.

  5. #175
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,656

    Default

    it would be the fault of the manufacturer depending on how safely they had designed it.
    No - because the driver is supposed to take into account the limitations of the vehicle. And the roads. Otherwise no car older than 2 years would be allowed on the road and there goes all the historic car clubs. Manufacturers of cars (and guns) are not liable for what the owners do with them.

    My point was - if the dog (car/weapon) is not managed and looked after correctly within its own limitations - then it's the owner's fault.

    I don't think breeders should be allowed to breed dogs that repeatedly show aggression to humans or other dogs - and I don't mean just the stressed back off thing but the kill given the opportunity with no obvious provocation.

    In other news this morning - I heard a story that a Rottweiler that was involved in an attack on a child - got post mortemed at the owner's insistence because they were sure it would not attack - and the PM found a pencil stump rammed in the dog's ear. Children are cruel and savage.

    Well bred APBT don't attack humans no matter what. But those are not the semi feral things being bred by low lifes for "protection" and "scary looking dog" ie owned by people scared of their neighbours or (illegal) drug dealers / manufacturers. And those people are going to find any breed to fit the bill, hence most of them are some hybrid of big bad tempered dogs and not a specific breed. They do have a problem if they home the puppies of these with unsuspecting parents. And in this case - I'd hold the breeder responsible in combination with the parents for not doing enough research. It's a bit like owning an unfenced pool with toddlers around.

  6. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    I'll again point you to the book "The Lost Dogs", if you'd like, pm me your postal address and i'll send you a copy. Otherwise get yourself some real world experience .... that's it for me with this discussion
    Thanks MymateJack and I appreciate it, but once again anecdotal evidence is not really useful when determining things via population (thousands of instances).

  7. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    It is better to put out a warning than have those not as experienced with the breed become complacent which is when accidents happen. Dog Aggression is something you can expect when you own one of these breeds, it is not a death sentence and it does not mean every dog will display DA either. Generalising the breed is what has gotten it into the position its in now. It is like saying all people of x coloured skin are criminals, when they aren't.
    Not really, because nobody designs and breeds humans to perform specific functions. If you selectively breed a dog to be dog aggressive, it will be more likely to be dog aggressive. In a species with a pack mentality that is important to their mental wellbeing, what is the point of continuing to breed them to be dog aggressive? It serves no purpose. As far as I can see it only causes harm.

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    I'll again use my dogs as an example. Harley has aggression issues, it is most likely fear based aggression which is my fault because I was not aware of how important socialisation was when I got him. Bella is fine around other dogs but she will not be dominated and if she see's a fight between other dogs she will happily join in even though she has had nothing to do with it. Harley and Bella live quite happily together, they have never had a fight and I don't ever see them having one. He lives in his pack of two humans, another dog and a cat and his DA isn't causing him to suffer. He is able to be kennelled, visit the vet and do anything any other dog can do except go off leash... but I wouldn't do that anyway.
    You wouldn't let them off lead, but is that justification enough to continue to breed a dog so that the average specimen is untrustworthy off lead? Surely it would be better to breed them to be as trustworthy as possible in all aspects?

    It's great that they live together in their pack of two, but part of being a pack animal is being able to meet and socialize with unfamiliar dogs without conflict. I've observed dogs that have only met each other once several months ago, skipping the cautious sniffing stage and immediately running and playing together. Dogs visibly and obviously remember meeting hundreds of other dogs and their lives are richer for it. Just like humans, really.

    On the other hand I can see a breed being deliberately bred to be dog aggressive, and I have to ask why? What possible benefit do we gain from purebreeding a dog with known aggression issues, if we no longer want it to perform the function that it was originally bred for? It seems to me like we're just preserving it for the sake of preservation rather than any rational reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by jadielee87 View Post
    I don't really understand why you say it is cruel to breed them. As far as I am aware BYB's don't really have any goals in breeding so I really doubt they are breeding for aggression. The way I would see it is they would get two nice looking dogs and put them together. Breeding for appearance yes, ignoring temperament yes but not necessarily breeding for dog aggressive dogs. Unless of course they are involved in dog fighting.
    As far as I know breeding for appearance does not help to reduce temperament problems, and in some cases increases those problems. If the breeding for appearance point is true (and I suspect it is), it shows that pitbull breeders are totally apathetic about the obvious problems the breed has and is known for. They don't care that the breed is dog aggressive and they don't see it as a problem.

    I say it is cruel to breed dogs for dog aggression, because dogs are social pack animals and breeding them to be aggressive warps their experience of other dogs from something healthy and positive into something that's unhealthy and negative. Believe it or not when a dog shows aggression it is unhappy. A dog's social structure is bigger than the dog it lives with. It includes the dog down the street who it can hear barking at night, the dog who pees on the tree outside the front yard, the dog who it meets while walking, the dog who it sits with outside shops sometimes, the owner's friends' dog who it hangs out with at BBQ's, etc etc etc. All these experiences may seem insignificant to humans, but to a dog they are a huge part of its life.

    Now take all these experiences and turn them into something negative. Instead of being interested in the other dog and desiring to include it in it's social network, the pitbulls likely impulse is to attack and hurt. Can nobody see how incredibly screwed up that is, that humans have buggered up something so complex and delicate in their desire to create a fighting machine? The dog's instinct to form relationships is atrophied into something violent. IMO to deliberatly stymie a dog's brain like that is very, very cruel, and to continue breeding them without a goal to make them normal around other dogs, is also cruel.

  8. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    No - because the driver is supposed to take into account the limitations of the vehicle. And the roads. Otherwise no car older than 2 years would be allowed on the road and there goes all the historic car clubs. Manufacturers of cars (and guns) are not liable for what the owners do with them.

    My point was - if the dog (car/weapon) is not managed and looked after correctly within its own limitations - then it's the owner's fault.
    Good point, but you're forgetting that car manufacturers (like dog breeders) often talk up the attributes of the car (or dog) without acknowledging the problems. You won't get 4wd manufacturers admitting that they are less safe than sedans, for example. And you'll often get pitbull proponents arguing that they are just the same as any other dog when they absolutely are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    I don't think breeders should be allowed to breed dogs that repeatedly show aggression to humans or other dogs - and I don't mean just the stressed back off thing but the kill given the opportunity with no obvious provocation.

    In other news this morning - I heard a story that a Rottweiler that was involved in an attack on a child - got post mortemed at the owner's insistence because they were sure it would not attack - and the PM found a pencil stump rammed in the dog's ear. Children are cruel and savage.

    Well bred APBT don't attack humans no matter what. But those are not the semi feral things being bred by low lifes for "protection" and "scary looking dog" ie owned by people scared of their neighbours or (illegal) drug dealers / manufacturers. And those people are going to find any breed to fit the bill, hence most of them are some hybrid of big bad tempered dogs and not a specific breed. They do have a problem if they home the puppies of these with unsuspecting parents. And in this case - I'd hold the breeder responsible in combination with the parents for not doing enough research. It's a bit like owning an unfenced pool with toddlers around.
    I absolutely agree. But the fact remains that there is no real effort going on to stop pitbulls from being dog aggressive, so it doesn't matter how well bred they are.

  9. #179
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,656

    Default

    Most people I know who love the breed APBT - say they are not the best dog for a first time dog owner - especially someone with small children. Ie If you don't know how to train a puppy to be well behaved - then the APBT won't know what its job is - and may be more dangerous and certainly won't know what to do with a child that is misbehaving (eg walk away).

    I don't know what the current breeders of APBT are doing regards temperanment. If they want their breed to survive in Australia - they're going to need to breed it to be less dog aggressive. But again I thought that was also a matter of training. Eg a border collie should be very keen to herd (not chase) sheep, but it needs to respond to the "Stop" command and "come here" command. So I imagine a fighting dog - you would not want to start the show before you were ready. And if you wanted to have dog shows in the traditional sense - you would not want the dogs in the ring to be trying to attack each other.

    Tho I have read some really daft ways of trying to get (JR) terriers? or schnausers? to be more feisty? around other dogs - ie one of them has this written into their breed standard...

    There's not really anything being done to stop people breeding aggressive dogs of any breed. I've also read stuff about aggressive labradors being bred - and seen a few around Adelaide - tho not sure if these are ANKC labs or BYB / Puppy mill labs. And I also read of a dog at a formal dog show - attacking a child -and I hope that dog does not get bred. Though - as per the rotti with a pencil in its ear - don't know the whole story - just that dog should not have been where it was.

  10. #180

    Default

    Mosh you do realise that there arn't many people 'selectively' breeding (any breeding actually) for DA in this day and age dont you?

    Of course there is the idiots that still do ( and no doubt always will) and these people breed to put their dogs in the box. It's illegal in most countries so its all done 'underground' and the majority of these 'fighting - dog aggressive' dogs are not purebreds but a mish mash of breeds at times, but hey, if it looks tough and acts scarey than it must be a 'Pit Bull'. A red nose is a top bonus.

    And basing your judgement of a breed on the minority and not having had experience with them , only in theory , is taking an enormous swipe at the breed in general with a mighty big brush.
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •