Opening a can of worms, sorry

Pops2

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,072
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
UT
Back on topic. About pit bulls loving to fight. Well, I think it is more of having more will power than loving to fight. I don't know, I'm not a dog. Just that other breeds, not only pit bulls, were used in matches. Some other breeds were proven game as well. Rarely happen, but it did happen. Does that mean that other breeds love to fight? A dog, no matter the breed, who would fight a dog is not usually said to ''love'' to fight so why is it that pit bulls are said to love it? I think many other breeds will fight in the pit, the difference being the longivity. Pit Bulls were bred to have the will power to continue fighting no matter what, which is what separates them from other dogs. If pit bulls love fighting so much, than why are most pit bulls curs?
as i've already described, dogs got very upset at being left behind when other dogs were loaded up to go match. dogs would be all excited & wiggly happy while being washed before the match. there were lots of obvious signs of wanting to & enjoying matching.
in most cases other breeds were put in the box BECAUSE the showed a love of fighting. in the 1880s a retriever racked up an 84 win record. that dog was put in the box in the first place because it showed a love of fighting on the street, in the field and/or in the kennels. other dogs were bred for & used for matching and were tried against the bull & terrier breeds like the shar pei (old pics show the shar pei looking almost identical to an APBT) or the dogs had enough similarity in build and natural drive to accept a challenge that they were tried, like boxers between the world wars.
a lot of bulldogs now are curs because they have been crossed w/ junk under the table, and scatter bred from cold pet type dogs. lots of game dogs still out there and proving it today in japan and other places.

Yes, people should not have said if you love something, why would you put it in danger. I think what that person meant was, if you love something, why would you put that person in a situation where you want it to get hurt? People who put their children in sports do NOT want their child to get hurt.

Yes, not every dog match a dog breaks a bone or a dog dies probably because most dogs would cur out before that happen (or they aren't going against a hard biter), but keep in mind that when things like that DOES happen, the crowd gets excited. That is what they want to see happen in a dog match. The bigger the injuries, the more will power the dogs must have to overcome it and continue on, the more fun the match is to everyone. Matching like the one I posted DID happen, and they were remembered BECAUSE of the brutality of it, and that is what they want to see.

Now, the past was a different time. Not going to put that against people, but no one, I mean no one, is going to convince me to believe that they love their dogs. Respect their dogs, yeah, proud of the dogs, yes, not love.
again people let their kids engage in activities that could get them killed because the kids love it, so did most of the dogs.
those fights were remembered because they were the exception. yes i am sure there were people who were all about seeing blood just like there are people who watch nascar hoping for a bad wreck, but they weren't the majority.
lastly you are projecting YOUR feelings onto people you don't know. just because you cannot conceive of yourself matching a dog you love deeply doesn't mean they have the same thought process. i can assure you many matched their dogs BECAUSE they loved them and wanted them to do what they loved & were bred for.

One way to see if your dog was game in the past was to gametest it. Remember, being game means you have to overcome extreme pain and exhaustion so the dogs HAVE to feel extreme pain in order to be sure. Gametesting is putting your dog against a number of three different opponents( it could be more, correct me if I'm wrong) one after another. This means your dog will have to fight one for a certain amount of time, than is put on another, than is put on another. This guaranteed that the dog WILL get seriously hurt and that is what they wanted.
we called it rolling the dogs and it was a training technique before the dog ever got matched. rarely was a dog hurt rolling do to the way it was carried out. it was basically a series of 5-10 minute matches against dogs of similar weight (within one weight class up or down) but more experience. this was how they learned to fight. yes it could involve more than 3 rolls.
 

Tahla9999

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
1,105
Likes
0
Points
36
actually the laws of manumission required at least 3 character witnesses and proof of an ability to earn an adequate living. this was done to specifically prevent dangerous or incapacitated slaves being abandoned to be a blight on society. so basically the vast majority of freed slaves were skilled craftsmen who ware generally more affluent than the average white. they were also more likely to own slaves. while about 5 percent of southern whites owned slaves about 20% of free blacks did.
again not saying slavery was right, just that due to widespread false hoods the general perception of it was that it was widespread cruelty & violence that was the economic equivalent of smashing the hydraulics on your backhoe about 1X a week.
the point being that if a person will step back from their feelings and look at it objectively it was not the horror story it is perceived and w/o it our world would not be where it is today socially, politically & technologically. from an objective look, it was a necessary evil for the ultimate good of the world. the problem like w/ the whole matching issue is that people have trouble being objective.
Interesting. I do know that free blacks did own slaves, but I also read that many of their slaves were actually their own family members. Many of them took the opportunity to get them back.
I believe the reason why slavery is seen only in a bad light is because people naturally are more interested in the bad. My old English teacher had an old book preserve about the voices of some African slaves. Much of the stories were of negative experiences, so I don't doubt that things weren't all fine and dandy, but there is always another side to these things. It is much more interesting to see a movie about a very negative slave owner than one who was really kind, and that is said for all things actually. People who work in shelters are often seen as bad people in many dog related movies, but that is usually farthest from the truth.
 

Pops2

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,072
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
UT
unfortunately we are drawn to the worst of things that's why we have tv shows telling us about all the bad things stars did over the weekend and why they are going to jail. objectivity is hard to get out of people any more.
 

Tahla9999

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
1,105
Likes
0
Points
36
Me and you have to agree to disagree on the love thing.

we called it rolling the dogs and it was a training technique before the dog ever got matched. rarely was a dog hurt rolling do to the way it was carried out. it was basically a series of 5-10 minute matches against dogs of similar weight (within one weight class up or down) but more experience. this was how they learned to fight. yes it could involve more than 3 rolls.
No, not schooling. Gametesting is suppose to be hurtful for your dog and it is suppose to be done after you roll them. Though it depends on the owner. Some will test their dogs on more than one in a certain period of time, while others would use an already proven dog. Either way, it is done intentionally to harm them to see their level of gameness.
 

Pops2

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,072
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
UT
the way rolling is handled is it starts easy w/ dogs of similar age & experience but progresses to proven dogs so the young dogs learn more. done correctly by the time they are ready to match they've done exactly what you're talking about but w/o the injury (because that could end a dogs career before it starts).
and yes, i'm ready to quit beating the horse.
 

elegy

overdogged
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
7,720
Likes
1
Points
0
To take over the roll of devil's advocate, can you honestly say that every single person involved in hunting and herding and ratting/vermin hunting is doing it for a purpose? I know plenty of people that hog hunt just to give their dogs a job. They will kill the hog, but give it away to someone else as they don't eat it or want it. I know people who have participated in badger hunts, but it's not because they want to eat badgers or wear them as shawls. It's because they solely wanted to see their working dogs work.
i guess the bottom line for me is that i'm ok with it when there is a constructive purpose. i agree with hunting (by dog or by human) when the purpose is constructive. i don't agree with killing for the sport and entertainment of killing. and i can see nothing constructive about fighting dogs.
 

Miakoda

New Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
7,666
Likes
0
Points
0
Me and you have to agree to disagree on the love thing.



No, not schooling. Gametesting is suppose to be hurtful for your dog and it is suppose to be done after you roll them. Though it depends on the owner. Some will test their dogs on more than one in a certain period of time, while others would use an already proven dog. Either way, it is done intentionally to harm them to see their level of gameness.
Rolling is not done to intentionally harm a dog. Putting the dog in a contracted match is not done to intentionally harm a dog. Dog fighting, as it was back then, was not done to intentionally harm a dog.

Stabbing a dog is done to intentionally harm a dog. Lighting a dog on fire is done to intentionally done to harm a dog. Throwing a dog out of a moving vehicle or tying it up and dragging it from such vehicle is done to intentionally harm an animal.

While I respect your opinion that matching is done to intentionally harm a dog, it was not and is not. If harm was what one owner wanted to see done to a dog, they would've employed various different methods including some of those in the aforementioned paragraph.
 

milos_mommy

Active Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
15,349
Likes
0
Points
36
i guess the bottom line for me is that i'm ok with it when there is a constructive purpose. i agree with hunting (by dog or by human) when the purpose is constructive. i don't agree with killing for the sport and entertainment of killing. and i can see nothing constructive about fighting dogs.
I've been trying really hard to figure out how to word my view on this, and I guess that sums it up...same way I feel about hunting. If you're going to EAT what you kill, great. If you're going to stuff it and stick it in your living room, I think that's weird and gross and not OK. I don't want to say I think you're a horrible person for it because I know other cultures and religions and things view that differently. But I don't think it's a nice or pleasant thing to do and I can't imagine killing for sport or fun.
 

Juicy

New Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
8,666
Likes
0
Points
0
Rolling is not done to intentionally harm a dog. Putting the dog in a contracted match is not done to intentionally harm a dog. Dog fighting, as it was back then, was not done to intentionally harm a dog.
Stabbing a dog is done to intentionally harm a dog. Lighting a dog on fire is done to intentionally done to harm a dog. Throwing a dog out of a moving vehicle or tying it up and dragging it from such vehicle is done to intentionally harm an animal.

While I respect your opinion that matching is done to intentionally harm a dog, it was not and is not. If harm was what one owner wanted to see done to a dog, they would've employed various different methods including some of those in the aforementioned paragraph.
Neither is putting clothes on a dog. :confused: Not to turn the thread OT, just don't see your reasoning for dogs wearing clothes as cruelty. Its your opinion, but I just never understood that logic.
 

Tahla9999

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
1,105
Likes
0
Points
36
Rolling is not done to intentionally harm a dog. Putting the dog in a contracted match is not done to intentionally harm a dog. Dog fighting, as it was back then, was not done to intentionally harm a dog.

Stabbing a dog is done to intentionally harm a dog. Lighting a dog on fire is done to intentionally done to harm a dog. Throwing a dog out of a moving vehicle or tying it up and dragging it from such vehicle is done to intentionally harm an animal.

While I respect your opinion that matching is done to intentionally harm a dog, it was not and is not. If harm was what one owner wanted to see done to a dog, they would've employed various different methods including some of those in the aforementioned paragraph.
This is another we have to agree to disagree.
What, in your opinion, was dog fighting for? If people bred for gameness there must be a level of harm that the dog must go through to prove itself. The matches where dogs have broken their legs and continue fighting is remembered because of a dog overcoming his pain and discomfort.
 

Fran101

Resident fainting goat
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
12,546
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Boston
Thats one thing I never understood. when we confiscated fighting dogs and put them in seperate dog runs/kennels at the shelter


they would be literally GOING FOR THE FENCE and trying to get to eachother and trying to fight. barking, tails going, chewing at the fence.
and nobody was forcing them or putting them in togehter

brain washing? do they enjoy fighting? stress?
Who knows. but I never really understood.
 

Pops2

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,072
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
UT
I've been trying really hard to figure out how to word my view on this, and I guess that sums it up...same way I feel about hunting. If you're going to EAT what you kill, great. If you're going to stuff it and stick it in your living room, I think that's weird and gross and not OK. I don't want to say I think you're a horrible person for it because I know other cultures and religions and things view that differently. But I don't think it's a nice or pleasant thing to do and I can't imagine killing for sport or fun.
this is probably going to surprise a lot of people, but i feel very similar. i like the german approach that EVERY one is a trophy and to be respected. but i also am not a huge fan of big game shooters for the very reason that they are targeting the very best of the species and doing so in a way that the animal cannot really counter. not that i don't shoot deer for the meat, but when i want to enjoy what i'm doing, i take out Sonic & a knife. if he catches he's strengthening the deer herd. if he doesn't he's still strengthening the herd. and the deer has plenty of opportunity to hurt or kill us both.
 

PixieSticksandTricks

Athletic Labs. They Exist
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
10,799
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Ohio
Just wanted to point out that I NEVER said that Pits don't look to fight other dogs. Some do. But again my #1 issue is people putting them together in a pen and calling it a "sport" or "entertaining". Not every dog forced into that life ENJOYS it they are simply surviving.
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
One thing I can say about this thread (all 20 pages) it has been ENLIGHTENING to me personally. I have learned some facts I was unaware of, and I feel the reason for that is how everyone seems to be handling the discussion in a pretty nice way whether they agree or disagree :)

*rock on civil debates* :D

P.S. I feel the same way about hunting/killing animals..........for food = fine and good, for trophy or sport only = stupid and wasteful.
 

pitbullpony

BSL Can Be Beaten
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
711
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
ON, CAN
Interesting views

Very interesting thread.
Guess now wouldn't be a good time to say that I enjoy MMA and when I watched my sister's fight last weekend; I enjoyed it immensely. :cool:

I dare say that the concept of love is a tough one to crack.

Since there has been a fair amount of anthromorphizing in this thread, I'm going to go with my favourite; I bet the parents of soldiers that go off to war; love their kids, even if that parent doesn't support the war the kid is fighting in.

Let's see; entity is going off with the intention to hurt or kill; with the possibility of being hurt or killed. (Check)

Entity may not want to be in that particular "pit" (Check) -- some anyway

Entity may really want to be in that particular "pit" (Check) -- some anyway

Entity is fighting same species entity (Check)

Do parents of entity have love/respect for specific entity and entity's specie in general -- sure.

Now I am still confused as to why dogmen can't/didn't love their dogs. People love due to possession, people love due to parental instincts, people love due to pride. People love due to companionship/company. Love isn't a black or white emotion.

Do I love my dogs? Sure; for a variety of reasons.
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
You're allowed to use dogs to hunt deer there? Can't do that here. not that we would if we could with our two beasts lol.
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
I bet the parents of soldiers that go off to war; love their kids, even if that parent doesn't support the war the kid is fighting in.
I would just like to point out real quick that MOST (if not all) parents do NOT send their child to war whether they agree with the war, understand it, or not. They didn't sign that child up for military service, and if they DID it wasn't in hopes of said child going to war. So that comparison is pretty much dead in the water.

I can totally agree with you that love isn't black and white. I love many people and things and each in a different way, so I can definitely concede that point :)
 

corgipower

Tweleve Enthusiest
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
8,233
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
here
brain washing? do they enjoy fighting? stress?
Who knows. but I never really understood.
Some dogs do enjoy a good fight.
In protection sport, fight drive is often a topic of discussion. In those dogs though, it's not a drive to fight with other dogs. It's a drive to fight with people. Prey drive makes them want to chase and catch, defense drive makes them want to protect. Fight drive keeps them going no matter what.

When Nyx was young, I had to work hard to not trigger her fight drive. It wasn't easy. She loved to find a reason to get into it.

It's kinda like pro boxers. They fight because it's fun.

I feel the same way about hunting/killing animals..........for food = fine and good, for trophy or sport only = stupid and wasteful.
*not picking on you here coop...yours was just the one I hit "quote" on...*
How about hunting simply because they enjoy it? Sure, they eat what they kill, but that's not the primary reason for being out there.

No one needs to hunt for food. We have grocery stores.
 

Pops2

Active Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,072
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
UT
*not picking on you here coop...yours was just the one I hit "quote" on...*
How about hunting simply because they enjoy it? Sure, they eat what they kill, but that's not the primary reason for being out there.

No one needs to hunt for food. We have grocery stores.
most people that hunt w/dogs are out for the joy of it for themselves & the dogs.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top