Page 20 of 38 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 373

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

  1. #191


    Quote Originally Posted by ChoppaChop View Post
    Have to say ,most of what Ricey has written is true .

    I'm more than a bit surprised that someone with as much dog experience/training as Mosh is so adamant that the APBT is a dog aggressive monster and shouldn't be bred. More still , making this statement on no real life experience but only what they have read on the net.
    I never said it was a dog aggressive monster. What I am arguing is that every single other dog is recognized for its breed specific traits EXCEPT the pitbull. Why is it that people can acknowledge that a greyhound will impulsively chase anything similar to a rabbit, but when someone suggests that pitbulls are dog aggressive it's considered blasphemy? If a dog has been selectively bred for aggression, it's not going to be a suitable house pet for average Joe Bloggs. As other people on this very thread have said, sometimes the dog aggression drive comes out of nowhere despite a good and social upbringing.

  2. #192


    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    I haven't been following this whole thread, but I just had to respond to this:
    "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."

    Where on earth did you get that idea?
    From observing the behaviour of dogs over a number of years, including a hell of a lot of rescues. When a dog urinates on a tree we see it as just relieving itself, but it's sending a message to all the other dogs that might come by. It's like a stat sheet about the dog's gender, age, health, and sexual availability. Similarly when two dogs meet and sniff each other, they are forming acquaintances that will be remembered the next time they meet.

    When a pack of dogs is travelling together and it meets a dog or dogs outside of the pack, the first thing all dogs do is judge whether there is a threat. They will look at each other from a distance, then if no aggression is sensed they will come around from the side to show they mean no harm. After a small period of stiff legged tail-up posturing, they will mingle freely and interact with each other, much like you'd do with people you saw at work or at the shop. The next time they meet, the cautious stage will be skipped and they will just mingle.

    It follows that a dog that is bred for dog aggression will be less capable of this behaviour without specialized training and careful socialization, and sometimes they're still not trustworthy. I don't understand why we'd want to do that to our closest ally in the animal kingdom. It's so selfish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    Just like humans, she doesn't feel the need to be friends with every dog she meets.
    But just like humans, dogs need to know other members of their own species outside of their family group. They are promiscuous animals and a large part of this is about sex. However even a neutered dog will still seek to form social networks where they have knowledge of all the other dogs in their area. They might not bound up to each other and be best friends, but even knowing that they are not threats to each other is extremely important to them. Selectively breeding a dog that is prone to aggression towards other dogs is warping the delicate and complex social nature of a dog's brain.

  3. #193


    I have never once denied my breeds traits of being prone to DA.

    But this does not mean that every APBT/Amstaff is going to be born inherently DA.

    2 thirds of the world are being responsible with their 'Pit Bulls' , the other third are people we ourselves fight against everyday.

    I disagree that it is warping a dogs mind.
    Why is it? How is it?
    They live happily in multiple dog households and most wont just launch into an attack on another dog, however, they will retaliate swiftly if provoked.
    Just the same as alot of other breeds.

    The only time you could correctly apply the 'social' need in any dog is yes, when it comes to bitches on heat etc. Though this also causes many fights between males when dogs are not controlled . They do not Need to socialise outside the family unit. That is a human concept , oh , that dog never gets away from its family unit,how cruel,how sad. Rubbish!
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  4. #194


    Half my post went *p o of* bugga it!
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  5. #195


    When a pack of dogs is travelling together and it meets a dog or dogs outside of the pack, the first thing all dogs do is judge whether there is a threat. They will look at each other from a distance, then if no aggression is sensed they will come around from the side to show they mean no harm. After a small period of stiff legged tail-up posturing, they will mingle freely and interact with each other, much like you'd do with people you saw at work or at the shop. The next time they meet, the cautious stage will be skipped and they will just mingle

    No. That is a false concept to be putting out there.
    We could never expect a group of dogs who have met once to happily , 'automaticly' 'mingle' again on second meeting.
    Many factors could weigh in to that type of scenario.

    I know I certainly wouldn't be teaching people that " oh yeah, all is hunky dory if they have met once before , nothing to worry about , they're mates now from way back"

    The majority of this breed has not been selectively bred for DA for some time. And most of the ones in idiots hands are not true Pit Bulls but crosses of god knows what.
    But just like any other breed , caution and proper social manners etc should be exercised .
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  6. #196
    Join Date
    Aug 2011


    Appropriate body language used for socialising can even be taught to dogs. Any dog.

    But there are plenty of dogs of all breeds who just don't like to mingle.

    And marking is very different from meeting a dog face to face. Checking their territory for other dogs' marks is natural behaviour. Happily mingling with strangers is not.

  7. #197
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Bayswater, Western Australia


    OK, I have spent (possibly wasted LOL) another hour of my finite life span by going back and re-reading all the posts made by everybody in this thread.

    There were 7 reply posts made before Mosh made his/her first post. The 7 posts, made by some of the most respected members of this forum advised the Original Poster to chill out and not assume that your neighbours dog was going to be evil just because it had a red nose.

    Then Mosh made his/her first post:

    If your neighbours are terrified of your dogs, it sounds like they would not be able to handle a pitbull. Despite what people may say, a pitbull is not "just a dog", they require a LOT of effort, exercise, and training, and even then it will not be 100% trustworthy around children and other dogs. When the pro-pitbull website run by people who love pitbulls says "never trust your pitbull not to fight", you know that this is not a breed that makes a good house pet. I understand your concern and I would be just as concerned in your position.
    I make the point here that Mosh is a person who by their own admission accepts that they have no personal experience with American Pit Bull Terriers but relys on 'what they know from reading some web-sites'.

    There were then 14 replies, all of which basically said to Mosh 'hey, Pit Bulls are just dogs like any other dogs, and your views are a little extreme'.

    To which Mosh replied:

    Originally Posted by Beloz
    I don't know where you got the impression that PBTs are less trustworthy with kids than other dogs? These dogs used to be called "nanny dogs" for god's sake!
    I got the impression from pit bull websites, most of which admit they are not trustworthy with other dogs. And the name means nothing - it's even possible they were called "nanny dogs" to offset their poor reputation. I'm not trying to argue that there are no nice pitbulls, or that they are all bad. I don't think in black and white like that. I am aware that there will be docile, friendly, safe pitbulls.

    What I am saying is that they are MORE LIKELY to display certain behaviour - out of a sample population of 1000 pitbulls, it's very likely that a higher proportion of them will be classified as "dangerous" compared to a sample of 1000 staffies or boxers or labradors or weimaraners or beagles. Part of this is due to their size and power. Part of it is due to their history as a breed and how each breeding pair has been selected. Part of it would be the type of people who own them and how they are raised.

    Originally Posted by Beloz
    And you can never trust any dog not to fight!
    Why not? I'd trust most of the dogs I know not to fight. I'd trust a few of them with small children 6 years old and over. Generally speaking, most dogs will do whatever they can to avoid a fight.

    Originally Posted by Beloz
    Your opinion does not at all seem based on facts. Which kind of surprises me from you, to be honest.
    My opinion is based on the fact that the pitbull is a fighting breed. Breeds that are designed to fight and guard, are more likely to be territorial and aggressive. I've seen a lot of emotional arguments that pitbulls are the most wonderful dogs ever, and the opposing view that they are the most dangerous and vicious dogs, but none of these arguments have convinced me.

    As far as I'm concerned they are a powerful breed that, like many other breeds, are prone to aggressive behaviour, require more effort to keep them balanced, and are less likely to make good house pets. The difference is that all the dogs that are rated as more aggressive than the pitbull, are smaller and less powerful. The dacshund is rated as number 1 most aggressive, but I would rather be attacked by a dacshund for obvious reasons. Tellingly, while they are not rated as the most aggressive dogs, the pitbull and rottweiler are most likely to kill people, being responsible for nearly 70% of dog bite fatalities or about a third each. It's pretty solid evidence that you're more likely to die if attacked by either of these breeds, while if you're attacked by a dacshund or border collie you're only going to be moderately injured.

    This popular opinion everyone seems to have that powerful fighting breeds like Pitbulls are no different to any other breed seems to be based on emotion, not facts and reality. We know that dogs are bred for different purposes. We know that a dog bred for a particular purpose is more likely to try to fulfill that purpose. We know that some breeds make better house pets than others. We have no problem acknowledging that breeds like greyhounds are more likely to chase things, bulldogs are more likely to be stubborn, jack russells are more likely to be bossy and fearless, mini poodles are more likely to be highly strung, etc etc. So why the resistance and denial when it comes to acknowledging that a dog bred for fighting and guarding is more likely to be aggressive? It's unrealistic to only attribute positive characteristics to breeds without also acknowledging the negative characteristics.

    I just don't get the attitude that every breed is prone to breed behavior EXCEPT the breeds that are designed and selected for guarding and fighting. It all seems very emotional and illogical to me.
    After that post there were 10 replies which basically said 'hey Mosh, your logic is flawed and many posters pointed out that there were other dog breeds that had the same characteristics as pit bulls.

    Not to be deterred by logical arguement, Mosh then posted this:

    Originally Posted by Hyacinth
    I don't think I've met many Labradors with this either. There's so many dodgy lab breeders, they don't care if they send out an aggressive nightmare. And so many owners think Labs = born a fully trained guide dog... and ruin the dog.
    I know right? Most of the Labradors I've met are very highly strung and have just plain weird personalities.
    Talk about shooting your self in the foot...

    Anyway, then there were 13 posts by respected forum members all decrying the lack of well bred American Pit Bull Terriers in Australia because of the effects of breed specific legislation.

    To which, Mosh posted this:

    Originally Posted by Lala
    LOL I had a bit of a chuckle at Mosh who said "Never trust a pitbull not to fight" (this meaning, fight another dog, not a person), and then separated out the staffy into some other category LOL.

    Clearly hasnt heard staffs can be dog aggressive also (putting aside the "all breeds can" - because if we are being honest, there are some breeds more prone to it).
    As far as I know, Staffies have had their selective breeding for fighting watered down over the last 150 years or so, whilst American pitbulls have a much more recent history of being specifically bred to fight other dogs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Pits descended from Staffies and represent a specialized proto-breed that was hybridized specifically for dog fighting?
    Oh my god! A specialised proto-breed that was hybridised specifically for dog fighting! What a nasty little pile of cocky cage floor sweepings LOL. You really can't expect us to take you seriously when you spout this stuff.

    A few responsible members of this forum tried to gently remonstrate with Mosh, who then seemed to decide that the best form of defense was attack and came out with this little gem:

    I've never actually met a pure pitbull, but I've known some good staffies and some very untrustworthy ones. If pitbulls are statistically larger and more aggressive than staffies, then that makes them more dangerous. I'm just basing my opinion on the statistics and information I find. You really have to sift through the propaganda and emotional arguments, there is very little objective information about pitbulls out there.
    "I've never actually met a pure pitbull" but I am willing to base my entire knowledge of pitbulls on a few staffies that I have known and on my knowledge on the "very little objective information about pitbulls out there".

    These are Mosh's words, not mine. This person knows and understands very little about pit bulls, by their own words.

    Mosh pulled his/her head for some time, as there were 57 posts on this thread before they ventured back into the fray:

    Originally Posted by Hyacinth
    I argue that it's highly unlikely any pure bred APBT are left in Australia - because there has been no breed database kept or control of breeding to ensure that only APBT are bred with APBT - for several dog life times. Ie anyone can cross a bunch of scary looking dogs and call the result a Pitbull. But it isn't really. And this would be the main reason the BSL is stupid.
    This I can agree with.
    Yeah, so Mosh believes there aren't any pit bulls left in Australia, so why does Mosh believe that pit bulls are such a problem in Australia?

    Then there were 22 posts which discussed ther problems of breeding well bred pit bulls in Australia and other issues; then Mosh gave us this little pearl of wisdom:

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    This simply isnt true. Non of my dogs were territorial, yes they wanted to fight each other but that was because that is how they are designed not because they were aggressive or territorial.
    This makes no sense. If they want to fight, it means they are aggressive and/or territorial.

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    As far as a APBT being just another dog, well they are dogs but they are not like other dogs they take a lot of work and being very careful but in the right hands they are awesome. When you own a APBT you have to be responsible, never let it off leash, dont go to dog parks, watch for signs that they may pick fights and avoid it, if they dont like dogs dont force it your asking for trouble. Just like greyhounds you wouldnt take a greyhound to a place where there will be small animals running around and let it off leash. Other breeds have things you have to be careful with. JRTs may turn around one day and kill your cat or small pet. DOgs are bred usually for a purpose and when they act on that purpose dont blame the dog blame the owner that wasnt diligent enough to know this and protect the dog from failing.
    If you can't take them to dog parks and should never let it off leash, it's not just another dog and should not be owned by people who aren't highly skilled and experienced. It's pretty clear to anyone who isn't totally biased that pitbulls are a specialized dog breed specifically designed for fighting and aggression, that is not suitable to be an average house pet for average people. All this talk about them being the best breed and just sooooo trustworthy is nonsense. If you can't let it off the lead or trust it not to fight, it's not trustworthy and therefore is not the best breed. I can't imagine owning a dog that I couldn't trust not to be aggressive, that does not sound at all enjoyable or fulfilling. Why on earth would you subject yourself to that?

    If the average person can't safely take care of one, then it should be a restricted breed - just like any other breed that requires specialized training and care.
    The average owner can't look after a border collie properly either, so therefore border collies should be a restricted breed too.

    After 5 replies, this is what Mosh came up with:

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    Well in that case then how do you feel about JRT? Are they aggressive? They were bred to kill and most if given the chance would does that make them bad dogs?
    I never used the terms good or bad, it's not the dog's fault what it was designed to do. There's no such thing as good or bad in this issue, only "suitable as a pet" and "not suitable as a pet".

    Yes JRT's are aggressive without training and socialization and they are bred to kill small prey animals. I own a JRT cross and she kills every rat and rabbit she can catch. If we had to live off the land, we would not go hungry as long as we had her with us. However a prey instinct towards prey animals is very different to a fighting/killing instinct towards other dogs - members of their own species. A hunting instinct in dogs is normal and healthy, a canicidal instinct is not normal or healthy.

    I would trust a JRT not to fight other dogs and I would trust it off the lead. I would not trust it around small rodents, however the likelihood of it running into any small rodents that I didn't want it to kill are quite low. The JRT's predator instinct does not really impact the dog's social interaction or its ability to accompany me in my day to day life. I can take my JRT wherever I go and trust her not to cause violence. You can not say the same about your pit bull.

    Plus, even the meanest craziest JRT would have difficulty causing fatal damage to a human over the age of 5 or 6. A full grown male pitbull could potentially take down Anthony Mundine. There is a huge difference in power and weight which is impossible to deny. Fighting off a crazed JRT would be pretty easy. Fighting off a crazed APBT would be a fight for your life.

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    So greyhounds are bad too? Cant take those to the dog park, they chase and can attack small dogs and cats. Your mixing up animal aggression and human aggression. You wont find me saying APBT shoudl be let to run around with other animals but they are a good family dog for people who know the breed and enjoy the breed. I could always trust my APBTs not be aggressive, just because they would fight another dog does not make them human aggressive. They were dog aggressive please dont mix the two because they are totally different things. As far as letting it off lead I dont let any of my dogs off lead and dont really like dog parks (they are an accident waiting to happen) so not being able to do these is fine by me. There are so many breeds that are not only dog aggressive but bite people all the time should be ban all those breeds too?
    Again, I never used the words good or bad, what a dog is bred to do is not its fault.

    You could not trust your pit bulls not to be aggressive, because you already said they would fight other dogs if given a chance. The desire to fight is called aggression. Categorizing it into aggression towards people or animals is just deliberately confusing the issue.

    Dog parks are not an accident waiting to happen. I frequently take my dog to lots of parks and she has never been badly attacked in her 7 years. She is trained to be friendly to other dogs, and to return to me if another dog becomes too excited or aggro. Dogs will snap at each other occasionally and grab each other's necks while running, but this is very different from the type of fight a pitbull is designed for. Snapping and growling is communication. A fight to the death is not. A normal dog will not have an urge to maim and kill other dogs.

    Logically you would not be able to do the same things with a APBT as you would be able to do with another dog, such as leave them outside a shop or walk them off lead. You must always be aware of the potential to fight and kill other dogs. The APBT dog is not a multipurpose companion dog, it is a specialized fighting breed that must be given special treatment. I also do not agree with breeding greyhounds to be so prey fixated that they will kill small dogs, but this discussion is about APBT's not greyhounds.

    Whether it's typically human aggressive or not doesn't really matter so much as asking: is it aggressive at all? If it's aggressive to members of its own species, it's a bit illogical to assume it won't show any aggression whatsoever to a different species. You say "please don't mix the two" and you talk like it's impossible for pitbulls to be aggressive towards humans, but it's not exactly impossible for them to be human-aggressive. A human-aggressive pitbull is not a rarity - many people use them as guard dogs.

    You are trying to portray them as dog aggressive and totally human-safe, without acknowledging them as dog aggressive by default, with a potential for human aggression. So what if other breeds are also potentially aggressive? This doesn't make the APBT any better.

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    Numbers dont lie In the 2011-2012 ATTS results Both APBT (86.8% passed) and Am Staffs (84.2% passed) beat the Aussie cattle dog (79.3% passed) (another breed that can be a bit dog aggro) so do we ban those?

    They also beat Basinji 67.8% passed
    Bloodhound 73.5%
    Boxers 83.4%
    English Bulldog 70.4%
    Chihuahua 68%

    There are many more they beat so what do we do with all these breeds?
    I never said ban them, I said restrict them. A dog is a powerful predator animal, just because it is domesticated does not mean it's ok for any average Joe Shmo to own any breed he wants. We are not hunter gatherers any more, and the time when most people used their dogs for hunting and protection is over. We now live in an artificial environment but we still want to own these powerful predator animals from times past.

    I respect your right to own powerful fighting breeds like Pitbulls, but you should be able to prove that you are able to control them totally and that there is no possibility of an accident. If you are capable of controlling them at all times then there's no reason for you not to own one.

    IMO all powerful breeds of dog should be heavily restricted and only people with proven capability should be allowed to breed and own them.
    I think we have to accept that Mosh is not someone that logical arguement works with.

    He/she immediately followed the preceding post with this one:

    I don't get why there are forums all over the internet full of people claiming to be dog lovers, who then fawn over the one breed that is more likely to commit canicide than any other breed. Shouldn't we be able to recognize that it's cruel to breed an animal that wants to kill members of its own species? As a dog person I am apalled that people have deliberately bred a dog in this way.

    What would we say about the equivalent human? "Oh, Andrew can't be trusted with other humans because he might bludgeon them to death with a crowbar, but he's totally safe with dogs and cats". How happy would Andrew's life be, isolated from other people and unable to form relationships with members of his own species? What if someone had deliberately designed Andrew to be homicidal? Wouldn't that be considered evil?

    Dogs are social pack animals, they benefit from friendship and form strong bonds with other dogs. They have a deep and complicated level of communication with each other which makes them happy and fulfilled. I think breeding them to want to maim and kill each other is a crime against nature.

    If you don't want your pitbull to fight and it spends its entire life in isolation from other dogs, what's the point of the breed at all? If they're such a fantastic breed then why not start breeding them with a goal to eliminate the aggression entirely?
    Remember, this is from a person who freely admits that they have never had any experience with pit bulls. But they are prepared to spout this crap.

    This was quickly followed (5 posts later) with this gem:

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    There are people like this actually they are in jail and many times get out to offend again.
    So what if someone had deliberately made them like this? How would we label the people who designed other people to want to commit homicidal violence?

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    Actually they were not bred to kill each other that is something that humane societies put in peoples heads, yes they did get hurt and would rarely die from injuries but the point wasnt to have 2 dogs fight to the death.
    You're splitting hairs. The injuries pitbulls inflict on each other in the ring are horrific, their teeth saw into muscle and bone, and if these injuries were inflicted on other dogs they would most likely be fatal. It's not always fatal to another APBT because they are designed to take massive amounts of punishment and to fight for hours.

    On average a fighting dog can survive about 5 or 6 fights before being killed in the ring. Deaths are frequent and are considered to be a normal part of the dogfighting "sport".

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    Oh you haven't seen some of the JRTs I have seen but being a vet tech and dog trainer we get to see a lot more than the average person. I love JRT dont get me wrong but they are a much higher liability than APBTs.
    I've seen dozens of JRT's and none of them were dangerous around other dogs. The worst a dog would get from a JRT is barked at and maybe its legs nipped. To say that they are a higher liability than APBT's is to go back on everything you've said about not being able to trust them not to fight, and not being able to have them around other dogs. There is no warning on any JRT club sites about not being able to trust them not to fight, and never letting them off lead. With the right discipline training they are totally trustworthy and will walk nicely off lead. It says something when the lovers of the APBT breed will acknowledge that they can't be trusted no matter how much training they are given.

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    People did and they are called AM Staffs which you can see again not as many passed as APBT. Why do I like the breed? Easy they are far superior to any other breed with my children. They are awesome with people this is why I like them, they are not a large dog (mine ran 28-35 pounds), easy to groom and keep clean. Have determination like no other breed of dog I have known they are beautiful.
    So is the only difference between a pitbull and AmStaff the temperament towards other dogs? If so, why would we allow pitbulls to continue existing in their current state of dog aggression? Why isn't it considered an undesirable trait that they can't be trusted around other dogs?

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    So what happens when a person JRT off leash runs into a cat and catches it then kills it? See here is where you are missing my point there should be no reason to have to fight off a crazed APBT they should not under any circumstances want to harm a human. If they do its easy solution destroy the dog and move on. We have to set very high standards with the APBT if it acts funny with a human it goes down, no ifs and or butts because this breed is suppose to be rock solid with humans.
    Not high enough - they are still dog aggressive and will continue to be until it's bred out of them. And if a JRT kills a cat this is not unhealthy or abnormal behaviour for a dog - the cat is a different species and thus an acceptable part of the prey drive. You can teach a dog to be safe around cats, but it's not going to adversely affect the dog's mental health if it thinks cats are fast food. I would argue that keeping a dog isolated from other dogs is not at all good for its mental health. They are pack animals and need to form relationships with each other without the involvement of humans.

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    I dont care about my dogs running around with fluffy and having a good time though. I dont feel the need to show off a APBT at dog parks, I am happy enjoying the dogs showing them, going to the beach with them, doing weight pull with them having them cuddle with the children at night.
    Good on you, like I said you've got a right to enjoy the breed and keep it (as long as you're able to control it 100%), but it's still illogical for you to claim that the breed is better than other breeds and somehow "safe". The fact is that you have to take steps to keep them away from other dogs, and in my opinion this is not healthy or normal for a dog to want to attack other members of its species. In a society where dogs are running around everywhere and more than 40% of families own a dog, it's a liability to breed one that can't be trusted not to fight other dogs. It's not a companion you can take wherever you like.

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    I would guess the number of ADBA registered APBTs involved in an attack on a human is little to none. These "pit bulls" involved in attacks are usually some sort of mix and that is really unfair. I would like to see the registration papers on these attacks because most are just mutts being labeled because they have big heads. I am not talking about some backyard bred mutt I am talking about real registered APBT I wish they would just change the name because then people can have their crazy mutts call them pit bulls to look tough and then the APBT can be renamed it would save a lot of confusion
    How many ADBA registered APBTs have been involved in fatal attacks on other dogs? I would be willing to bet that it is not a small number.
    This was almost instantly followed with this:

    Originally Posted by ChoppaChop
    All I can really say further on this matter is that no matter what argument we put forward , no matter what personal experiences we share here , I believe that Mosh has their mind made up thoroughly on the APBT .
    I'm not really interested in personal experiences, since they don't represent the majority or the average. Unless you can tell me that the average APBT can be safely left alone unsupervised with other dogs, then yes I have made up my mind based on the information I have.

    Originally Posted by ChoppaChop
    To state things such as " Shouldn't we be able to recognize that it's cruel to breed an animal that wants to kill members of its own species?" is quite ignorant in my opinion and does nothing but in fact show the amount of lack of understanding some people have for this breed.
    What lack of understanding? What ignorance? Every single pitbull website and even the people who argue as its proponents, say that it is not trustworthy and cannot be allowed around other dogs or off lead. In my opinion deliberately breeding a dog that cannot form a healthy pack relationship with other dogs is a cruel and unnecessary thing to do. Deliberately breeding a dog to have such a strong drive to fight that it makes it untrustworthy, is a cruel and unnecessary thing to do.

    Originally Posted by ChoppaChop
    No dog wants to kill any other dog it see's. Even heavily bred game dogs put in a box wont fight to the 'death' . Beaten dogs will attempt to back off,to stop the fight. It is how winners/champions were decided. However,what the generation of today does is something quite different,with a totally different class of dog.
    Problem is , whilst they call them APBT , 99 percent of them certainly are not.
    Whether or not that may be the case, the fact remains that APBT's cannot be trusted around other dogs because of the risk of injury or death. There aren't many dogs that could survive an attack by a pitbull.

    So I ask again - why are there armies of people who claim to be dog lovers, but who spend their time claiming that the most dog aggressive dog is the "best breed"? Why is it that APBT's continue to be bred with a strong drive to fight, if the breeders don't want them to fight? It doesn't make sense.
    Then Mosh came out with this crap about Staffordshire Bull Terriers:

    Originally Posted by mymatejack
    Hi Mosh,

    What's your opinion of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier?
    They are apparently the breed of dog most likely to bite humans in Australia. If this is true, I expect the reason there aren't many fatalities is because they're too small to do fatal damage. I personally have no problem if someone wants to own one and they're capable of taking care of it, but I've had a lot of contact with a lot of staffies and they are intense little buggers. I looked after a staffy duo a couple of years ago and they would get so obsessed with tugging at the ball or a stick they'd chew each others lips until they bled all over each other. However even those two would not properly attack each other or any other dog, and they could be walked off lead reasonably reliably.

    Staffies have not been specifically bred for pit fighting in the last century and as such their drive to fight has been watered down. Most of them are pretty much a mongrel breed. They're now classified as an "all-purpose dog" which I think fits the bill. Unlike the APBT, they are not untrustworthy around other dogs by default although their temperament varies widely.

    I would have no problem with APBT's if all their breeders made a concerted effort to breed out the aggression and turn the breed into a trustworthy multipurpose companion dog. However the vast majority of the time people breed for appearance only, which means the aggressive traits stay right where they are.
    Then there was this:

    Originally Posted by mymatejack
    Mosh, I suggest you read "The Lost Dogs" the Michael Vick story, it will open your eyes to the real facts of the APBT.
    Hi Mymatejack,

    The only fact we need to know is this: Is the average pitbull trustworthy around other dogs, yes or no?
    And this:

    Originally Posted by Greys4me
    I would rather have to take steps to keep my dog away from other dogs than have to figure out how to keep it away from my kids or other humans
    Me too, fortunately the two are not mutually exclusive and there are plenty of breeds that exist that are not prone to aggression towards humans or dogs. You make it seem like it's one or the other when in fact most breeds don't have aggression issues to either species.


    Originally Posted by ChoppaChop
    Mosh I'm having a really hard time understanding your 'logic' concerning this breed. For example , you keep stating it's cruel and unethical to be breeding APBT because they are just dog killers with no other place in society.

    Well with that logic , what about the breeds that are bred to be human aggressive ?
    Same logic. Unless they're owned by a security, military, or police force, they've got no place in the average home as a pet, and even then I still think it's unethical to breed them like this. If I had my way all dogs would be multipurpose mongrels, we'd see a lot less genetic problems and a lot less aggression.

    I'd like to make it clear that I don't believe in banning any breed because it causes more problems than it solves, but I do believe in heavy restriction. People should not just be able to go out and aquire any kind of dog they feel like, without being able to prove they can control it and take care of it correctly.

    Originally Posted by ChoppaChop
    It sounds as if the only experience/knowledge you have of the APBT is negative,media driven myths and I say that with all respect .
    I have many friends that have 'packs' of Pits living in the home and most of my friends have at least two. Most of these dogs can co exist with other dogs in the family enviroment quite happily. Yes they may be not as dog friendly outside the home but the APBT isn't unique in this trait.

    Are they prone to DA? Yes.
    Can they lead happy , stable lives interacting with other dogs? Of course they can.
    The experience and knowledge I have of the APBT is negative for a reason. No I have never met a pure APBT, but the information gained from the people who love APBT's speaks for itself. They are not trustworthy and they need to be kept under close supervision, that is a fact that is repeated over and over again on every single source I read.

    What you've said here is contradictory. If they're prone to dog aggression then it follows that they can't lead happy stable lives interacting with other dogs, because there's always the shadow of potential aggression hanging over their heads. You have to keep them away from other dogs and never leave them alone with another dog. Why would you want that for your best friend? Why would anyone deliberately breed a dog like this?

    Originally Posted by ChoppaChop
    My Pit girl was killed by none other than the good old Aussie icon,the blue cattle dog . Did it make national news? Nope. Did it make local news? Nope. Did it make it at least to the local paper? Sort of,but breeds wern't mentioned....wonder why that was ?

    And on the flip side by the way , even if this breed were completely untrustworthy around other dogs. It does not make it cruel to continue to breed them. They would still live happy , useful lives within its own family unit. So bluddy what if they cant go to a dog park? I hate the places anyway. Most people I know dislike dog parks. They are very often nothing but a smelter box of fools and accidents just waiting to happen.

    Not having a dog friendly breed is certainly not a reason for it to be wiped away.
    I'm sorry to hear about the death of your dog, that must have been awful for you. Cattle dogs belong on farms - it's just another example of a breed that is unsuitable for suburban pet life being kept as a pet. The APBT is by no means the only breed that has dog aggression issues, but as far as I know it's one of the only breeds who have been deliberately bred with this trait. With other breeds it's just a side effect.

    Discontinuing a breed or breeding it differently is not the same as wiping it away. Adaptation is never a bad thing. And if a dog is more likely to be dog aggressive, it's not that much different from deliberately designing a human to be aggressive towards humans. It's limiting their opportunities in life and ensuring that they don't have the same potential as another dog without the same aggressive tendencies. I just can't conceive of any reason why anyone would want to keep breeding a dog that had a greater likelihood of having aggression problems. It seems totally counterintuitive to me. If you love dogs, wouldn't you want to breed a dog that had a reduced chance of hurting or killing other dogs?
    Then this:

    Originally Posted by mymatejack
    Is the average APBT that has been brought up in a responsible manner trustworthy around other dogs? Yes! There will be a small percentage that no matter how much socialisation is provided will simply never get on with other dogs, but the percentage wouldn't be significantly higher than many other breeds - exactly the same as the SBT. That is why i directed you to the Michael Vick story, the vast majority of those dogs, who were not only specifically bred to fight but also trained specifically to fight, were able to be rehabilitated into not only normal household pets but therapy dogs also in some cases. I know you are a very knowledgeable person when it comes to dogs and training, i am very surprised at your stance on these type of dogs.
    That is not the message I am getting from APBT clubs and sites all over the internet.

    They do not say "it's possible to get your APBT to be 100% trustworthy around other dogs", they say "NEVER TRUST YOUR PITBULL NOT TO FIGHT".

    There is only one reason why a club devoted to the love of a breed of dog would have such a strong and unambiguous message. I think there was even an anecdote in this very thread by someone who knew a pitbull that had been socialized, but turned out to be aggressive regardless of it's good upbringing. The message I am getting is that the amount of aggressive pitbulls is not a small percentage at all.

    I'm surprised that you're surprised about my stance. I'm a realist, I know that dogs that are bred for a purpose tend to display the behavioural traits that allow them to fulfil that purpose. That's how genetics work. Jack Russells are bred to kill rats, Beagles are bred to hunt foxes and make a lot of noise, Golden retrievers are bred to retrieve things.

    Pitbulls are bred to fight other dogs, therefore they are more likely to want to fight other dogs. But among the pitbull apologists they seem to be exempt from this rule of traits. So we've got no problem saying that an average Retriever will enjoy fetching a stick, but when the subject is pitbulls it suddenly becomes "blame the deed not the breed", as if pitbulls were the one breed that did not perform according to the nature that was deliberately bred into them.
    And this:

    Originally Posted by Hyacinth
    Maybe we could look at it this way...

    You can do a lot more damage with a Prime mover than with a Barina - but both can be dangerous.

    But is it the fault of the vehicle or the numb skull behind the wheel?
    Well, it would be the fault of the manufacturer depending on how safely they had designed it. If a car is more likely to be involved in an accident (eg, some 4wd's have a higher centre of gravity and an increased chance to roll), then it's the fault of the person or people who designed it.

    Originally Posted by Hyacinth
    On humans and genetics and serial killers - apparently there are DNA markers for human aggression / warrior genes or serial killer genes. One poor bloke had all 12 markers for human killer - but he hasn't killed anybody. But his childhood environment was very loving and positive. So he grew up happy and friendly to humans.
    But what about if someone had deliberately designed this man's genetics to have those 12 markers for homicide? Would it be unethical? Of course it would.

    That is the question nobody wants to answer. It's one thing when it's just an accident of genetics, but what about when it is no accident?

    Originally Posted by Hyacinth
    So there are definitely breeds of dogs out there that are capable of inflicting severe damage. There are also some that have the inclination - tho this is usually a combination of genetic tendency and up bringing. But is it really the dog's fault? Before we go down the italian route of banning every breed of dog that can break human skin (most of them), maybe we should look at banning some people from owning dogs and putting the resources into enforcing that. And maybe every dog owner should pay dog injury liability insurance - like we do for cars. And if people don't register or pay the insurance - they can go to jail - like we do for cars.
    Great idea about the insurance, and of course it's not the dogs' fault. It's the fault of the people who designed the dog to be that way.

    Here's my point as simply as I can put it:

    The APBT is bred for dogfighting. It has been selectively bred to be aggressive to other dogs. If we no longer want it to fight other dogs, why are we still breeding it with dog aggression? Why preserve a trait that at best, serves no purpose, and at worst, causes horrific problems? It is possible to breed APBT's with the same determination, energy, and drive, but without the dog aggression. So why aren't we insisting that every APBT born comes from stock that has been selected for non-aggression?
    And then this:

    Originally Posted by mymatejack
    You obviously have not had much experience with these breeds. I'd suggest you find some well trained and socialised APBT's and get to know them first hand
    I'm sure they can be very nice dogs if they're trained and socialized by people who know what they're doing, such as Greys4me. However this issue is about selective breed traits and statistical averages, not emotional personal experience. The instructions from the proponents themselves tell us all we need to know: pitbull associations all over the world state that no matter how well trained and socialized a pitbull is, you still should never trust it not to fight.
    then this:

    Originally Posted by mymatejack
    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.
    Look, I could go on quoting word for word the drivel that Mosh spouts, but I will spare you the discomfort.

    I think that any fair minded person will accept that I have just quoted Mosh's own words here. However, I also think that Mosh has been damned by their own words and he/she has not got a clue about American Pit Bull Terriers (and certainly no clues about how to construct an arguement).
    Last edited by ricey; 12-19-2012 at 12:26 AM.
    The APBT is the best of the best dogs (but it is just a dog, like any other breed of dog)

    My avatar? It's a pit bull in a poodle suit (a bit like me really)

  8. #198


    Quote Originally Posted by ricey View Post
    OK, I have spent (possibly wasted LOL) another hour of my finite life span by going back and re-reading all the posts made by everybody in this thread.
    Fantastic. Good for you. You've wasted an hour of your life quoting a lot of my posts and aggressively calling them crap, but there seems to be a lack of actual rebuttals there just hostility. Do you want to engage in discussion or just fight? I'm not interested in fighting and slinging insults so if you want that you should go elsewhere.

    I get that you are offended that I think your favorite dog should be restricted, I get that you think I'm a pompous wordy blowhard and I should not be allowed to have my opinion - but what exactly is your point? That there's no difference between staffies and pitbulls? That the pitbull has exactly the same aggression level as any other dog and can be handled by anyone? That it's totally trustworthy? There are many pitbull owners who will tell you this is not true. Do you HAVE a point or are you just here to sling insults? You think I'm an idiot and maybe I am, but at least I'm a polite idiot.

  9. #199


    Im rather disappointed.

    I began this thread in all honesty to require help in guiding my next door neighbour into not owning the type of dog (mind you they still have it) they have.

    The dog still isnt desexed or seen a vet and never goes for a walk. which means its fantastic for me (NOT) I have tried to help.
    Ive given up for now as ive chosen the decision of (its not my dog but if it raises hell with me my daughter or my dogs i will come down on them "the owners" like a tonne of bricks)


    WOULD ANYONE HERE recommend a powerful strong breed to a first time dog owner? i would like to think not!?

  10. #200
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    SE QLD


    Quote Originally Posted by reneighb View Post
    Im rather disappointed.

    I began this thread in all honesty to require help in guiding my next door neighbour into not owning the type of dog (mind you they still have it) they have.

    The dog still isnt desexed or seen a vet and never goes for a walk. which means its fantastic for me (NOT) I have tried to help.
    Ive given up for now as ive chosen the decision of (its not my dog but if it raises hell with me my daughter or my dogs i will come down on them "the owners" like a tonne of bricks)


    WOULD ANYONE HERE recommend a powerful strong breed to a first time dog owner? i would like to think not!?
    Don't think much of it Reneighb. Threads about Pit Bulls can quickly spiral into ones similar to this. There are those that are passionate about the breed and others not so much.

    Sometimes there isn't much you can do, some people are not willing to listen and to learn. Hopefully they follow their previous behaviour of rehoming dogs sooner rather than later. Or if you believe the dog is not getting the care it needs, maybe a complaint to the RSPCA and express your concerns about the "AmStaffy" next door. You don't need to point out to anyone that the breed shouldn't be for first time dog owners. Those with experience are well aware of this fact.

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

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