Your right, we can go around in circles forever
Your right, we can go around in circles forever
We often do chase our tails when it comes to these topics
Still , if just one member of the public reads this and goes away 'thinking' about the breed instead of simply 'knowing' what the press etc has told them.
Then this is one happy little black duck
GageDesign Pet PhotographySite still in construction so will post link when it's finished.
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?
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.
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.
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 Greys4me
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.
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?
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?
Last edited by Mosh; 12-14-2012 at 06:49 PM.
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.
Last edited by Mosh; 12-14-2012 at 06:46 PM.
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?
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?
Last edited by Mosh; 12-14-2012 at 06:48 PM.
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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)