Pit bull lover? Don't live in Mississippi

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rr165892 said:

PJ,pits are awesome pets.Like Gambsy said,"Very Loyal,Great with kids,easy to train,fun to hike or play ball with.Easy to care for.The violence is a learned behavior by idiots who have no right to own a dog.And any breed can be taught to be violent.Dobermans,GSheppards,Mastiffs,Labs it dosent matter.

You don't mean these ones though, huh?

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_24428.shtml?wap=0&

The owner is clearly an idiot, but just like we cannot dictate who can procreate... how do we keep such dangerous dogs out of their hands to prevent incidents like these?

Whether people wish to accept it or not, we are accepting risk when allowing people to own such animals. Let's not pretend that pitbulls are as playful as kittens- they can be downright savage and capable of inflicting harm to the point of death.

Why are we accepting such risks? So people can have their dog 'of choice'. The no shedding and not stinky characteristics make sense, but in my mind do not outweigh the risks while there are other dogs that offer the same. There is no need for owning such an animal in the urban setting. Out in the country, I get it... I truly do. The dog there is even a wise choice.

hedonist

My guy and I talked some about this last evening, Thirty - how pits and similar breeds deserve the vastness of space and ability to BE, naturally. Confine or injure spirit, and there will be repercussions.

I can't honestly say it across the board, but I believe most of this comes down to the owner and the physical / emotional environment the dog - any dog - deserves.

(lastly, I will say that kittens and cats can inflict severe damage to ankles and hands - but, as I've learned - it's typically the owner who initiates or encourages it)

rr165892

Ha,thirty.that was from my local news.How relevant.good job.
Thats the next town north of me.I hadn't read that story.Again it was the owner most likely that made them aggressive.Typically that is the cause.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

If you are thinking about getting a dog... go adopt one of the 57 dogs rescued from a South Korea dog farm that resides in the San Francisco SPCA.

I know we farm cows and chickens and various other animals... but there's something about seeing those pups that tugs at my heart. A very disturbing practice.

hedonist

Yes, Thirty! I just did a quick search on these specific pups...my goodness. And some say we're heartless

Drowned Out

HughFreakingDillon said:

I always find this argument interesting. for one, dogs have zero conscience. they have instinct. most humans have both. so yes, dogs have different rights than humans.

a buddy of mine has a dog. another buddy and myself were making jokes about him having to go home and pamper it every lunch hour, and I made a joke about him being intimate with it. He freaked out. he then went on to say that is the exact same as if he were making a joke about me being intimate with my daughter. I was so incredibly disgusted by his comment and his ignorance, still to this day I have a hard time remaining friends with him. and we were longtime good friends.

and then the idiot had a kid, and he wised the fuck up.

Nothing drives me more nuts than kid-less people comparing having a dog to having a kid. I want to say 'unless you think it's cool to leave a kid alone with a bowl of food and some newspaper to shit on, you should think about what you just said'.
That said, I realize the difference and the problems with the analogy...still, I think my point stands in regards to canine individuality/personality, and generalizing based on breed . Breed identification is nearly impossible and almost always incorrect (based on which breeds an owner thinks they have) , and breed specific legislation leads to perfectly well behaved dogs being destroyed - both pit-bull types, and other breeds due to overcrowded shelters.
As for dogs not having a conscience....I don't agree with that. How do you explain dogs showing shame or guilt? I think humans overstate our unique-ness in regards to conscience and self-awareness/consciousness, with severe consequence, because it allows us to justify destruction of other animals simply because we top the food chain. Brain scans show dogs to be as self-aware as human children....It's important not to conflate intelligence with consciousness and conscience. Dogs show emotion, recognize emotion in others, show traits like generosity and sharing....it's not at human levels, but it's there. Because they can't speak (to us), we rely on science to tell us how their brains work, so our understanding is evolving...and evolving toward a belief that animals (particularly mammals) think and feel more than we've traditionally believed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&single=1
http://io9.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-declaration-that-animals-have-conscious-awareness-just-like-us

PJ_Soul said:

The difference is the killing power. A temperamental small dog can't maul someone to death. You just kick the damn thing. But a pit bull or other large aggression dog bred for fighting has the instinct to attack to kill. Their jaw can crush bone. They won't let go. Etc. It is about more than just how often a breed of dog shows aggression. It's the impact of that aggression that matters, IMO.

Their jaws are no more powerful than other dogs of similar weight or head size. And in case anyone is thinking the old wives' tale is true: their jaws do not lock. Some people question the test methods for measuring biting power, but from what I've seen there is no evidence supporting your assertion. I'd take a bite from a small APBT over one from a great dane any day.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Interesting...

The news feeds and social media efforts that depict pitbull attacks have led to poorly formed opinions by some such as myself that pitbulls are menacing.

Yet, fb serves as a reasonable medium to construct an attitude where one believes there are WAY too many cops who will readily kill an animal.

I'm not necessarily going to argue against what you have suggested, but I'm not going to back off my position that pitbulls pose a problem either. Until I read story after story about labs out of control... I'm not inclined to believe we should be more concerned with them.

I can accept those studies you have presented, however they do not tell the whole story. The bigger piece to this picture- and what I have already alluded to- is the ownership piece. Further, pitbulls have been bred to fight. So... suggesting the breed has a propensity for violence is not a stretch (yes, not all, but selective breeding warrants consideration when trying to dismiss such an assertion as easily as you tried to do).

ah, Thirty....I've had people question my sources, my sanity, my morality, and all kinds of shit on this board, but not my critical thinking skills.... Not sure where you think I accused you of forming an opinion on pit bulls thru social media...but I assure you that my opinion on the proliferation of cops killing dogs is not coming from a single source, nor my facebook newsfeed alone. And I suspect that you have done no research on the topic before attacking my critical thinking, because if you had, you might see things differently.... Thousands of dogs are shot and killed by police annually....I'm not aware of a single policemen killed by a dog. Many, many dogs are shot for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time (the wrong place usually being their home) - the legislation in the OP justifies this and reduces police accountability....but then, you've recently and openly stated that the personal accountability that is prevalent in so many of your positions on this board, does not apply equally to police.

I'll post an article that addresses (along with many of the things discussed in this thread) the media bias against pit bull-type breeds with specific examples. It includes a story about a pack of (wait for it) labs killing a man....and guess what? Media outlets erroneously, and possibly intentionally, called them pit bulls....Regardless, it's not fair to any large breed to use labs as your litmus test for media coverage of attacks - they are one of the gentlest breeds regardless of size. A lab attack is not nearly as sensational as a pit bull attack...
I guess I should ask again - do you support breed-specific legislation? You said you didn't, but you also made statements singling out pitbull (types) and their owners for special punishment in the event of an attack.

Drowned Out

Here's the article....I don't have time to truncate or multiple-post it....character limits blow. annoying.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/pitbulls-used-be-considered-perfect-nanny-dogs-children-until-media-turned-them

Edit: in support of critical thinking , I've researched the nanny dog statement and found it to be controversial and pretty much universally loathed even amongst breed advocates. It is pretty much impossible to prove, applies mostly to staffies, and implies that it's ok to leave a kid alone with any large dog. Despite the hyperbole at the start, there is a lot of good info in the article.

HughFreakingDillon

Drowned, when I said dogs don't have a conscience, I should have said they don't have the ability to pre-form the notion of right and wrong. Sure they can show guilt and shame after the fact, although I don't know if that's just what we see in them, humanizing them, and what's really being displayed is just fear of their owner, knowing they did something to make master unhappy.

I personally do not believe that an animal sees a garbage bag, takes a step back and thinks "maybe i shouldn't tear that to shreds-I'm not supposed to do that". I think they just do it and reap the immediate rewards and the future punishment/scorn.

PJ_Soul

rr165892 said:

PJ,pits are awesome pets.Like Gambsy said,"Very Loyal,Great with kids,easy to train,fun to hike or play ball with.Easy to care for.The violence is a learned behavior by idiots who have no right to own a dog.And any breed can be taught to be violent.Dobermans,GSheppards,Mastiffs,Labs it dosent matter.

That is just not true. I am well aware that pit bulls can be great pets (I just don't think it's an argument that beats out the potential negatives or the neutrals), but attacks are absolutely NOT always linked to learned behaviour. It is an instinctual behaviour, hence all those cases where the owners were great, trusted their dog completely, and then their baby was mauled to death by the family dog for no reason. NOT every pit bull who has attacked had a bad owner.

Drowned Out

PJ_Soul said:

rr165892 said:

PJ,pits are awesome pets.Like Gambsy said,"Very Loyal,Great with kids,easy to train,fun to hike or play ball with.Easy to care for.The violence is a learned behavior by idiots who have no right to own a dog.And any breed can be taught to be violent.Dobermans,GSheppards,Mastiffs,Labs it dosent matter.

That is just not true. I am well aware that pit bulls can be great pets, but attacks are absolutely NOT always linked to learned behaviour. It is an instinctual behaviour, hence all those cases where the owners were great, trusted their dog completely, and then their baby was mauled to death by the family dog for no reason. NOT every pit bull who has attacked had a bad owner.

Same question to you, then...
Do you support breed specific legislation?
Chow chows like the one that rag dolled my pet as a kid, were bred to fight (base this on minimal research). They're more aggressive than any pit type breed according to the atts study. Should they be regulated into extinction?

Laws already on the books, if enforced, can take care of most dog bite issues. As mentioned at the end of the article I posted, dog courts would be a great thing.

PJ_Soul

Drowned Out said:

PJ_Soul said:

The difference is the killing power. A temperamental small dog can't maul someone to death. You just kick the damn thing. But a pit bull or other large aggression dog bred for fighting has the instinct to attack to kill. Their jaw can crush bone. They won't let go. Etc. It is about more than just how often a breed of dog shows aggression. It's the impact of that aggression that matters, IMO.

Their jaws are no more powerful than other dogs of similar weight or head size. And in case anyone is thinking the old wives' tale is true: their jaws do not lock. Some people question the test methods for measuring biting power, but from what I've seen there is no evidence supporting your assertion. I'd take a bite from a small APBT over one from a great dane any day.

Looks like the pit bull is in the top 5 as far as bite force goes, only beaten out by those most consider to also be dangerous dogs.
http://dogs.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Which_Dog_Breed_Has_the_Strongest_Jaw

Yes, aggression levels in a breed is also a huge factor. So put the two together... and to me it says that pit bulls are a risky dog to have around, and I don't think there is anyone who would actually suffer if their breeding and sale were made illegal.

Drowned Out

HughFreakingDillon said:

Drowned, when I said dogs don't have a conscience, I should have said they don't have the ability to pre-form the notion of right and wrong. Sure they can show guilt and shame after the fact, although I don't know if that's just what we see in them, humanizing them, and what's really being displayed is just fear of their owner, knowing they did something to make master unhappy.

I personally do not believe that an animal sees a garbage bag, takes a step back and thinks "maybe i shouldn't tear that to shreds-I'm not supposed to do that". I think they just do it and reap the immediate rewards and the future punishment/scorn.

I hear what you're saying and agree to some extent. but a well cared for and well trained dog of any breed can learn not to touch the garbage bag.
As for fear of the owner and knowing they did something to make the owner unhappy...isn't that what guilt and shame are all about? What causes humans to feel guilt and shame? Usually it is just an emotional reaction to stepping outside our conditioned behaviour. Substitute the master for your wife, God, or whomever you feel a moral responsibility to. this goes way deeper than I'm willing to get on monday, tho. I can't handle the nature/nurture debate on the best of days lol...fucks with my head.

HughFreakingDillon

Drowned Out said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Drowned, when I said dogs don't have a conscience, I should have said they don't have the ability to pre-form the notion of right and wrong. Sure they can show guilt and shame after the fact, although I don't know if that's just what we see in them, humanizing them, and what's really being displayed is just fear of their owner, knowing they did something to make master unhappy.

I personally do not believe that an animal sees a garbage bag, takes a step back and thinks "maybe i shouldn't tear that to shreds-I'm not supposed to do that". I think they just do it and reap the immediate rewards and the future punishment/scorn.

I hear what you're saying and agree to some extent. but a well cared for and well trained dog of any breed can learn not to touch the garbage bag.
As for fear of the owner and knowing they did something to make the owner unhappy...isn't that what guilt and shame are all about? What causes humans to feel guilt and shame? Usually it is just an emotional reaction to stepping outside our conditioned behaviour. Substitute the master for your wife, God, or whomever you feel a moral responsibility to. this goes way deeper than I'm willing to get on monday, tho. I can't handle the nature/nurture debate on the best of days lol...fucks with my head.

I don't think they necessarily know WHAT they did to piss off their owner, they just know their own IS pissed. In my (albeit limited) experience in owning my one dog many moons ago, he would only cower with guilt AFTER he saw that I was upset that there was trash all over the kitchen, not before. whether he put it together that eating the trash was wrong, I sincerely doubt. he may have learned through negative, um, feedback I'll call it, that he can associate the act with the owner's emotion, but I don't recall that ever stopping him from seizing the opportunity when it arose the next time.

PJ_Soul

I think people project why too much "human" onto their pets, especially dogs. They tend to assume that dogs feel human emotions, or something close to them because that's how we can try and understand the animal. Unfortunately, doing this probably leads to people understanding them less instead of more.

Drowned Out

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

PJ_Soul said:

The difference is the killing power. A temperamental small dog can't maul someone to death. You just kick the damn thing. But a pit bull or other large aggression dog bred for fighting has the instinct to attack to kill. Their jaw can crush bone. They won't let go. Etc. It is about more than just how often a breed of dog shows aggression. It's the impact of that aggression that matters, IMO.

Their jaws are no more powerful than other dogs of similar weight or head size. And in case anyone is thinking the old wives' tale is true: their jaws do not lock. Some people question the test methods for measuring biting power, but from what I've seen there is no evidence supporting your assertion. I'd take a bite from a small APBT over one from a great dane any day.

Looks like the pit bull is in the top 5 as far as bite force goes, only beaten out by those most consider to also be dangerous dogs.
http://dogs.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Which_Dog_Breed_Has_the_Strongest_Jaw

Yes, aggression levels in a breed is also a huge factor. So put the two together... and to me it says that pit bulls are a risky dog to have around, and I don't think there is anyone who would actually suffer if their breeding and sale were made illegal.

ATTS stats:
ROTTWEILER 5652 4,751 901 84.1%
MASTIFF 222 191 31 86.0%
DOBERMAN PINSCHER 1655 1,299 356 78.5%
GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG 3194 2,710 484 84.8%



AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 870 755 115 86.8%

So....aggression levels combined with bite force would indicate that the American pit bull is the lesser danger of any of these breeds. So do we include them in breed specific legislation, or do just file them under 'don't care if the breed ceases to exist'?
I'm too lazy to go thru the entire thread....have you answered my question about breed-specific legislation yet?
Your statement about people attributing 'almost' human feelings to dogs feels like a shot with some disclaimers you can use when I take umbrage....when really, the 'people' you're referring to, are scientists.

Hugh - I haven't had a dog for a long time, but I know for sure that when I did, if I came home to an 'accident' or he'd gotten into the garbage, I could tell he had 'done something' well before I knew what it was. The tail would be wagging, but lower....they know. Have you seen that video of that cocker waiting for his owner to leave the room before trying to steal food off the counter? Constantly checking if he was coming back before trying again? Cute as hell, and would def infer some kind of knowledge of right and wrong (cause youtube is scientific, ya know ) In a learned sense, anyway...again...whether morality is learned or ingrained, another discussion altogether.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URfISNQ1w68

PJ_Soul

Yeah, sure include them IF all the numbers work out (I think that number of attacks and severity of injury in said attacks has to be factored into the stats though). If any dog is matching or exceeding the danger posed by pit bulls of course I would expect the same laws to apply to all. It's not like I'm some kind of doggy racist, lol.

oftenreading

More thoughts on dogs' emotions from Stanley Coren, a Vancouver psychologist well known for researching intelligence in dogs (although that isn't his only area of research). If you don't care to read the historical stuff, skip the first few paragraphs. In his opinion, dogs do not have the capacity to feel guilt or shame, although they can feel affection, anger, fear, and some others. I certainly haven't seen or heard of any behaviours that suggest dogs can feel guilt or shame. After all, if you find that your dog has ripped open the garbage and, instead of getting annoyed at it you instead praise it, the dog will be happy, instead of thinking "no, no, I really shouldn't have done it, you're just trying to make me feel better".

http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/which-emotions-do-dogs-actually-experience/32883

hedonist

I would refer you to the "dog-shaming site".

I think dogs (some, anyway) get it. They're so intelligent / intuitive in other ways, I just can't see how they wouldn't know when they've fucked up.

(and also, back to the owner - don't praise or reward them!)

oftenreading

hedonist said:

I would refer you to the "dog-shaming site".

I think dogs (some, anyway) get it. They're so intelligent / intuitive in other ways, I just can't see how they wouldn't know when they've fucked up.

(and also, back to the owner - don't praise or reward them!)

Cute photos, but I still don't think a single one knows what the signs are all about .

No, they don't comprehend the reasons behind human rules, and why would they? What dog in their right mind wouldn't eat what's right there in front of them, or dig in the dirt? They're intelligent in their own way, not ours.

hedonist

Ha! No, the pooches don't get the signs and agree on human rules. But I think they have that sense of "no bueno!"

And great call on your last sentence.