Beautiful Pit on T.V.

[casablanca1]

I have a mixed reaction to the pit bull thing. While I don't believe that pit bulls, etc. are evil monster dogs, I find ridiculous the constant statements that they're no different than any other dog, that all breeds have bad individuals so why pick on the pit? It's obvious that the size, weight and temperment (bulldog determination, steadiness, etc.) of an AmStaff, APBT, American Bulldog, etc., make them much more dangerous than a Cocker Spaniel (for example) when an individual is bad. Having seen an American Bulldog in a murderous attack, I think these fighting dog breeds are much more dangerous than even a similarly sized dog such as GSD or a Lab or Dobe. Their sheer bulk makes them nearly impossible to stop.

Re: the breed ID thing, I am amazed at the laziness of reporters and the deceit of pit bull advocates in equal measure. For every 'pit bull' attack where the reporter apparently took the word of the nearest cop for the dog's breed, there's an animal shelter claiming that they have zero pits but plenty of lab mixes.

[Amstaffer]

It simply boils down to this indisputable example and fact.

If Pitbulls are killers, unstable or purely dangerous etc.... then why is it that you can go to countless dog shows where there are 50 male (intact) pitbull or Amstaffs in a small area where small dogs, small children, rude strangers and other "Triggers" for aggression are present but yet these "Genetic Killing machines" don't attack, don't bite, hardly ever growl. If it was their Genetic destiny to kill you could not have dogs shows for this breed. The answer to why you can is simple, the owners of these dogs care for their dogs. Well raise dogs that have been treat with compassion not cruelty.

If you can read this website
http://www.furryfriendsfoundation.co...03/Truth03.htm

And still think pitbulls are more dangerous than others I would love to read your evidence or logic.

Saying a dog is more dangerous because of there build is not fair. There are alot of dogs that are as bulky as the pitbull or even more so. Examples....St. Bernards, Mastiffs, Bullmastiffs, Boxers, Newfoundlands, Some Labs (very popular trend with some people), and these are just to name a few.

Heck I was at the dog park and I saw a Dalmantion attack another dog and it was a bulky, steadfast, focused, determined and crazy as any dog I had ever seen (except the bulky part). And I have been around a lot of bully breeds! With people this breed is better than most.

[oriondw]

Originally Posted by Amstaffer

Speaking of Hypocrisy, how come when it is a Akita mix who attacks a jogger it (according to your early post in another thread http://www.chazhound.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5803 ) is the jogger's fault? If you check out the link in my sig. you will find that pitbulls (even poorly bred ones) are consistently more stable and less likely to attack the most other dogs.

If only you would have finished reading both threads before you replied...

[casablanca1]

Originally Posted by Amstaffer

Saying a dog is more dangerous because of there build is not fair. There are alot of dogs that are as bulky as the pitbull or even more so. Examples....St. Bernards, Mastiffs, Bullmastiffs, Boxers, Newfoundlands, Some Labs (very popular trend with some people), and these are just to name a few. Heck I was at the dog park and I saw a Dalmantion attack another dog and it was a bulky, steadfast, focused, determined and crazy as any dog I had ever seen (except the bulky part). And I have been around a lot of bully breeds! With people this breed is better than most.

I didn't say they were more dangerous BECAUSE of their build, I said there are a number of factors that make a bad dog from a fighting breed more dangerous than a bad dog from a herding or working breed, and one of them was sheer bulk, those massive heads and chests and bone - which was a trait selected by generations of breeders precisely because it makes the dogs more formidable in the ring and harder to stop. This should be no more controversial than saying that a whippet's narrow body makes it less wind-resistant and therefore faster, or that a retriever's broad tail helps it swim better.

I don't think any breed is inherently dangerous, unstable, etc. I was just pointing out that the bad press these breeds have gotten isn't wholly irrational. Pit bull attacks are hot news because reporters are lazy and the press sensationalistic - and because pit bulls and their kin are the most likely breeds to be involved in attacks that cause serious injury and death. The stats on dog bites overall point to labs and cockers, but the stats on the worst (ie, most newsworthy) attacks show pits, pit mixes and other fighting breeds.

[siemens716]

Originally Posted by casablanca1

I didn't say they were more dangerous BECAUSE of their build, I said there are a number of factors that make a bad dog from a fighting breed more dangerous than a bad dog from a herding or working breed, and one of them was sheer bulk, those massive heads and chests and bone - which was a trait selected by generations of breeders precisely because it makes the dogs more formidable in the ring and harder to stop. This should be no more controversial than saying that a whippet's narrow body makes it less wind-resistant and therefore faster, or that a retriever's broad tail helps it swim better.

This makes alot of sense.

[Athe]

I didn't say they were more dangerous BECAUSE of their build, I said there are a number of factors that make a bad dog from a fighting breed more dangerous than a bad dog from a herding or working breed, and one of them was sheer bulk, those massive heads and chests and bone - which was a trait selected by generations of breeders precisely because it makes the dogs more formidable in the ring and harder to stop. This should be no more controversial than saying that a whippet's narrow body makes it less wind-resistant and therefore faster, or that a retriever's broad tail helps it swim better.

casablanca1,
To better answer your question I will try to describe to you what make each breed group unique. To create a breed we have enhanced, deselected, selected different motor patterns to make them perfect for the job we asked of them. To take an orginal natural breed like a mongrel you would have a dog with a very low prey drive, all the motor patterns are present but not are enhanced. To create a specific breed group I would keep breeding for certain motor patterns and in a few generations they would be enhanced motor patterns. Motor patterns and behavior conformation go hand in hand.

For example a Droving breed or Terrier would have a motor pattern sequence that looks like this: Eye stalk, chase, grab-bite, kill-bite, dissect, consume all of the motor patterns would be enhanced to create a good rodent killer or cattle drover. A cattle drover may have a more prominent eye stalk and chase motor pattern and not as much of a kill bite motor pattern as a terrier. A sheep herding dog would have EYE STALK, CHASE, grab bite, consume. The sheep herding dog does not have kill bite or dissect motor patterns as it is undesired in a sheep herding dog. A Retriever would have EYE STALK, grab-bite, consume...once again you don't want a dog that is going to maul the gunned down duck or chase a duck before the hunter has a chance to shoot it. These motor patterns do not just come by chance or with training, a good working dog has been specifically bred to have these motor patterns.

So, as you can see man has created unique motor patterns for different groups of dogs. Some of these breeds due to their motor patterns can be more dangerous than a dog that doesnt have all the motor patterns intact. The motor patterns and predatory sequences are poorly understood by many people, and for someone to say that all dog breeds are created equal really havent done a lot of research.
Of course any dog can and will bite, but, there are some breeds due to their predatory sequence and enhanced drives which can be much more dangerous than other breed groups. If people tried to understand and explain instead of getting defensive about their breed the world would be a safer place.
BTW, I have met many horrid Bull breeds, Rotties etc. If I had to choose to trim the nails of an aggressive APBT or an aggressive Golden Retriever; I would take the Golden without using a muzzle a million times over before I would chose the APBT.

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by casablanca1

but the stats on the worst (ie, most newsworthy) attacks show pits, pit mixes and other fighting breeds.

Do the stats really show this....or is it the media who has convinced us this is true? If your claim is true, I would still contend that these dogs that are involved in the more serious attacks are the result of poor owners and if you stick any other breed (almost any...not pugs lol) in their terrible conditions you would see MORE attacks of equal seriousness. This breed for some reason attracts people who wish to make themselves look tougher by having a "tough" dog.

I am not arguing that this breed is not physically capable of inflicting a lot of damage but every dog I named before and several others could do the same.

[Amstaffer]

Originally Posted by Athe

casablanca1,
To better answer your question I will try to describe to you what make each breed group unique. To create a breed we have enhanced, deselected, selected different motor patterns to make them perfect for the job we asked of them. To take an orginal natural breed like a mongrel you would have a dog with a very low prey drive, all the motor patterns are present but not are enhanced. To create a specific breed group I would keep breeding for certain motor patterns and in a few generations they would be enhanced motor patterns. Motor patterns and behavior conformation go hand in hand.

For example a Droving breed or Terrier would have a motor pattern sequence that looks like this: Eye stalk, chase, grab-bite, kill-bite, dissect, consume all of the motor patterns would be enhanced to create a good rodent killer or cattle drover. A cattle drover may have a more prominent eye stalk and chase motor pattern and not as much of a kill bite motor pattern as a terrier. A sheep herding dog would have EYE STALK, CHASE, grab bite, consume. The sheep herding dog does not have kill bite or dissect motor patterns as it is undesired in a sheep herding dog. A Retriever would have EYE STALK, grab-bite, consume...once again you don't want a dog that is going to maul the gunned down duck or chase a duck before the hunter has a chance to shoot it. These motor patterns do not just come by chance or with training, a good working dog has been specifically bred to have these motor patterns.

So, as you can see man has created unique motor patterns for different groups of dogs. Some of these breeds due to their motor patterns can be more dangerous than a dog that doesnt have all the motor patterns intact. The motor patterns and predatory sequences are poorly understood by many people, and for someone to say that all dog breeds are created equal really havent done a lot of research.
Of course any dog can and will bite, but, there are some breeds due to their predatory sequence and enhanced drives which can be much more dangerous than other breed groups. If people tried to understand and explain instead of getting defensive about their breed the world would be a safer place.
BTW, I have met many horrid Bull breeds, Rotties etc. If I had to choose to trim the nails of an aggressive APBT or an aggressive Golden Retriever; I would take the Golden without using a muzzle a million times over before I would chose the APBT.

This all sound great but stats don't support it. I am defensive because of all the illogical attacks this breed suffers.

[gaddylovesdogs]

True story....

There was once a dog attack. Before the shelter received the attack dog, they were told that the dog was a pit bull. When the shelter finally received the dog, they confirmed that the dog was actually a samoyed....a completely different breed than the pit bull.

Compare this (Pit Bull)


With this (Samoyed)


The media isn't always reliable.

[casablanca1]

Originally Posted by Amstaffer

Do the stats really show this....or is it the media who has convinced us this is true?

The media? Please, the media never goes deeper into a story than "Pit Bull Bites Child!" The stuff about overall bites v. bites resulting in severe injury or death I got from a dog writer and checked it on the CDC website - the pdf about the breeds involved in fatal attacks from 1979-1978 is at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Originally Posted by Amstaffer

If your claim is true, I would still contend that these dogs that are involved in the more serious attacks are the result of poor owners and if you stick any other breed (almost any...not pugs lol) in their terrible conditions you would see MORE attacks of equal seriousness. This breed for some reason attracts people who wish to make themselves look tougher by having a "tough" dog.

I agree that the big, powerful dogs attract fools and knaves. One of the problems I see with the defensive stonewalling by pit bull people is that their tactics - the dogs are great, you're just biased and hateful - shelter these same terrible owners. There seems to be a trend where people who have trouble with a bad individual of one of these breeds are treated with hostility and suspicion - are you sure that it was a pit bull who tore open your leg, or was it a pit bull mix? - while people who own one are welcomed virtually unexamined into the flock. "Bad owners" doesn't equal "people we don't know who live in a ghetto/trailer."