One thing I do want to mention is dog aggression is actually pretty inherent in a lot of terrier breeds. Have you ever gone thruogh a dog breed book and really looked at the descriptions of each breed (not just the cute photos?)
In the terrier section - a lot of them are mentioned to have a tendacy towards dog aggression:
From the akc page on terriers: (emphasis is mine)
"People familiar with this Group invariably comment on the distinctive terrier personality. These are feisty, energetic dogs whose sizes range from fairly small, as in the Norfolk, Cairn or West Highland White Terrier, to the grand Airedale Terrier. Terriers typically have little tolerance for other animals, including other dogs. Their ancestors were bred to hunt and kill vermin. Many continue to project the attitude that they're always eager for a spirited argument. Most terriers have wiry coats that require special grooming known as stripping in order to maintain a characteristic appearance. In general, they make engaging pets, but require owners with the determination to match their dogs' lively characters. "
APBTs and their cousins that fall under the generic term of "pit bulls" are terriers. Terriers made up their genetic makeup from the get go, and this is probably where the dog aggression (or dominance if you wnat to call it that) comes from.
The difference that "pit bulls" have against their other terrier brethren is that human aggression was purposefully bred out of them. Not trained. Bred. Any dog that showed human aggression while in the pit were pulled and culled from the breeding stock. Then all of the puppies that had come from a pairing from that dog were also culled. (aka killed, exterminated etc). However, because the purpose of the pit bull was to fight other dogs, or to catch vermin or to bait other animals much larger than he (bulls wild boars etc), the "gameness" the drive to take down other animals that were not human was emphasized.
Now, people keep talking about the facts of the breed(s) at hand. I am pulling off of my info off of breed sites, rescue sites, and trainers sites. I've seen the videos, my boyfriend has seen dog fights when he grew up in Brooklyn, and I've read a good many books.
I stand by my assessment because of the inherent genetic/personality trait of dog/small animal aggressiveness that pit bulls should not be encouraged to go to dog parks. Yes, it's a good thing to socialize young puppies with as many dogs as possible - it's also a good thing to recognize that facts are warped by one's perception.
If one perceives that nurture always holds sway over nature then it's your opinion that facts support you in that you can train any animal to go against what science/history says is what the genetic mapping dictates towards.
If one perceives that nature holds sway over nurture - or rather that nature should be recognized as having more of a determination of an animal's personality - then you guide the dog through training, but guard it against circumstances that could lead it towards danger.
I can present what i perceive as facts. Amstaffer can present his facts that are his by his perception. And so can the other 8000 members present facts in which they believe.
It's rather like anything in the human world - there's my perception, your perception and the true nature of the world.
But also one must keep in mind - that our human cultural perceptions change much faster than the rest of the animal world's perceptions of their world. We are placing animals under our perception fo what is wrong and right, what is useful and what is not, and ultimately our dogs while seemingly wanting our approval, wouldn't probably not care if they were show champions, or herding trial finalists. Animals generally just want to live, breathe, eat, sleep, procreate and play within their own species "cultural" system.
(to be continued another time and another place - because I think I may just be babbling .. but now i must stop and focus on other things at hand. )
In the terrier section - a lot of them are mentioned to have a tendacy towards dog aggression:
From the akc page on terriers: (emphasis is mine)
"People familiar with this Group invariably comment on the distinctive terrier personality. These are feisty, energetic dogs whose sizes range from fairly small, as in the Norfolk, Cairn or West Highland White Terrier, to the grand Airedale Terrier. Terriers typically have little tolerance for other animals, including other dogs. Their ancestors were bred to hunt and kill vermin. Many continue to project the attitude that they're always eager for a spirited argument. Most terriers have wiry coats that require special grooming known as stripping in order to maintain a characteristic appearance. In general, they make engaging pets, but require owners with the determination to match their dogs' lively characters. "
APBTs and their cousins that fall under the generic term of "pit bulls" are terriers. Terriers made up their genetic makeup from the get go, and this is probably where the dog aggression (or dominance if you wnat to call it that) comes from.
The difference that "pit bulls" have against their other terrier brethren is that human aggression was purposefully bred out of them. Not trained. Bred. Any dog that showed human aggression while in the pit were pulled and culled from the breeding stock. Then all of the puppies that had come from a pairing from that dog were also culled. (aka killed, exterminated etc). However, because the purpose of the pit bull was to fight other dogs, or to catch vermin or to bait other animals much larger than he (bulls wild boars etc), the "gameness" the drive to take down other animals that were not human was emphasized.
Now, people keep talking about the facts of the breed(s) at hand. I am pulling off of my info off of breed sites, rescue sites, and trainers sites. I've seen the videos, my boyfriend has seen dog fights when he grew up in Brooklyn, and I've read a good many books.
I stand by my assessment because of the inherent genetic/personality trait of dog/small animal aggressiveness that pit bulls should not be encouraged to go to dog parks. Yes, it's a good thing to socialize young puppies with as many dogs as possible - it's also a good thing to recognize that facts are warped by one's perception.
If one perceives that nurture always holds sway over nature then it's your opinion that facts support you in that you can train any animal to go against what science/history says is what the genetic mapping dictates towards.
If one perceives that nature holds sway over nurture - or rather that nature should be recognized as having more of a determination of an animal's personality - then you guide the dog through training, but guard it against circumstances that could lead it towards danger.
I can present what i perceive as facts. Amstaffer can present his facts that are his by his perception. And so can the other 8000 members present facts in which they believe.
It's rather like anything in the human world - there's my perception, your perception and the true nature of the world.
But also one must keep in mind - that our human cultural perceptions change much faster than the rest of the animal world's perceptions of their world. We are placing animals under our perception fo what is wrong and right, what is useful and what is not, and ultimately our dogs while seemingly wanting our approval, wouldn't probably not care if they were show champions, or herding trial finalists. Animals generally just want to live, breathe, eat, sleep, procreate and play within their own species "cultural" system.
(to be continued another time and another place - because I think I may just be babbling .. but now i must stop and focus on other things at hand. )
