Certain dog breeds...I just don't get it.

[MilliJac]

I've been fascinated by this thread so far, so I suppose I'll throw my in.

I don't like the guns/dogs analogy. There are some similarities in whether or not you are a responsible owner etc., but guns do not, nor have they ever, had free will and instinct, as well as the ability to carry out their will unwielded.

On the other hand, I am all for personal responsibility and accountability. If your Pit lives inside your fence or on your leash for its entire life, I have no problem with you having it. In fact, if your Pit gives a burglar a hard time, good on you. They deserve it .

*HOWEVER*, if your Pit escapes your fence by digging a hole or pulls its leash out of your hand and kills a toddler, you deserve severe consequences. Just as if you negligently/accidentally killed that toddler yourself. You made the choice to own the dog, and since the dog cannot be charged in a court, you deserve to bear the full legal consequence of their action.

This is my opinion, anyway. In almost all things, responsibility and accountability. But to the seemingly responsible owners like Phylo and Rookie, as long as your Pit minds its and your business, I can't see a reason to object to you having it.

Rookie and Phylo, what are your opinions on owners taking full legal responsibility for the actions of an owned dog?

 

[Rookie]

Post 169

 

[MilliJac]

Post 169

Would you be willing to spend time in jail if they killed someone? I don't think even the most hardcore supporter on your side would say the dog shouldn't be put down if they attack. I am interested in how much responsibility you are willing to bear for what they are capable of doing.

 

[Rookie]

My dogs wouldn't have the opportunity to kill someone, because they aren't allowed to be loose without supervision. Right now I'm at work and my dogs are in their cages. Why? Because no one is around and it's an extra layer of security. Could they be trusted to be loose in the house? Absolutely, but I won't allow it.

So, IF one of my dogs were to bite someone, I'd be within a few feet to stop them. Before that would even happen, I'm pretty sure I'd have an idea what is going on and I'd stop it before it progressed. Ignoring that though, let's say my dog did bite someone. Since I'm within a few feet, I'd step in and do everything in my power to stop the dog, including shooting the dog on the spot. If you, as a jury member, felt I didn't do enough, then so be it, I'm off to jail.

 

[Rookie]

Maybe I should explain a little more. I realize that pits are a powerful breed and they have the evil black rifle reputation. Because of that, I make sure that my dogs are obedient every second. When I open the door, they are sitting and waiting to be told they can go through the door. They will wait as long as I want until I tell them "okay". When I feed them, I set their bowls on the floor of the kitchen and walk out. They will sit and wait until I come back, put the bowls in front of them and say "okay". When they are outside in the fenced yard, I allow them to run freely but I occasionally yell "hey". When they hear me, they know to stop and wait until I say "okay". When they are on a leash, they know to be beside me and they know there had better be slack in the leash. The ONLY thing I allow them to do without permission is get a drink of water, then they better be back in the room, not wandering around the house. My dogs aren't perfect, sometimes they disobey. My older one really doesn't like to sit if it's not carpet. When they disobey, I don't ignore it, I correct them immediately.

Is it unreasonable? You decide for yourself. For me, I'm doing what I think a responsible owner should do.

 

[JettaKnight]

I have yet to hear anyone successfully refute the analogy. There is a comparison between the two. You have one side using skewed statistics and ignorance in an attempt to demonize ownership of something and attempting to label anyone who does of inferior intelligence. There are several examples of it in this thread and it is the same tactic used by the liberal gun grabbers.

That is an interesting analogy. So you have seen a rash of firearms escaping from their confinement when the owner isn't around and attacking other people? I had heard tell of such things but never witnessed it myself.

I dunno - seems like a good argument to me.


Of course, I do understand your point Phylo, and no, I wouldn't want your dog(s) taken away. Yes, these breeds could be considered the black rifles of the dog world, they're big, powerful and scare people like me.

However, unlike a black rifle, dogs are alive and operate on their own. They're not drones, they're not robots, they are animals. Therefore, they operate in a semi-unexpected way on on their own. They can't be locked in a safe, they can't be unloaded, they can't be outfitted with accessory rails. (or can they?)


They are not guns, not humans, but animals and should be treated as such. They demand a higher level of respect, but never on par with humans.

We pretty much all agree on those points, where we disagree is, "are pit bulls good pets?" For the owners in here, it's a personal argument. For others it may be out of fear. Either way, this is where the guns analogy (and subsequent argument tactics of using the "L" word) fail for the reasons I listed above.

I don't think the resolution is outright bans, but educated and awareness. Pit bull lovers are doing a great disservice when they claim pit bulls are sweet, tender, fuzzballs in an attempt to prove themselves good pet owners. No, the better picture to paint is one of a powerful, strong dog that can be a great pet when the breeding, training and home life is right. There's a right dog for every place (I can't believe I just said that), and a pit bull's place shouldn't be overextended. A pit bull is right for Phylodog, not for most others. That's the real meaning of Christmas.



Like someone else stated, I'd rather have a pit bull next door that is controlled than a yappy dog that runs free.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill,

1) I had a lovable Doberman for 15 years (during a time when they were getting a lot of bad press). I expected her to behave with all other animals and children. But I didn't trust her to do so. She was a dog. Who knows what a dog will do... My 2 year old niece used to feed her Dortitos and pull her tail and ears. And as she got older, my niece would run her through her commands to sit, stay, move out of the way and to run to the end of a leash and growl, snap and snarl at anyone who wasn't holding the leash. And a few other commands that were very funny and demonstrated my dog's intelligence.

2) Don't trust your dog with your grandson. Not for an instant. All guns are loaded, even if they aren't. All dogs can hurt/kill a child, even if they haven't.

3) "Breeds" of people? Please rethink this one. I'm not a fan of eugenics. Personally, I'm confident that "race" is a fantasy. And as a dad of an adopted daughter from the other side of the planet who has the good sense to look nothing like me (thank God!) I reject your parallel of "breeds" of dogs and "breeds" of people.
In the brief time I've been here, this train of though seems very unlike you.

4) I'll try very diligently not to succumb to prejudice. And I'll also try not to attribute human characteristics to animals- despite my significant love and affection for a particular pet.

Thanks for your answer.
My wife tells two stories that I think are illustrative. Both are from before she was my wife, but after she had the baby later known as my daughter (I adopted.)
1) She had, at the time the baby was born, at least two dogs. There may have been a third, but that is not relevant. The first was a chihuahua named Spike. Spike jumped up on her lap as she was feeding the baby and snarled and snapped at said baby. It was the last mistake Spike ever made, as she snapped a hand out and grabbed his head, and broke his neck without hesitation. Do not threaten the baby.
2) The other dog was a dachshund/pit mix. Lovable little guy. He'd curl up under the crib and sleep, and if my wife's now-deceased ex entered the room, he would wrinkle a lip and make it clear that he was not welcome (not that the ex entered the nursery that often) until the ex left the room, which happened quickly. Conversely, this dog (Mickey) was lying on the floor one day in a sunbeam, and small child comes crawling across the floor. She spied something that caught her interest, and as babies of that age do, it went straight into her mouth. Those two tiny little front teeth clamped down on a rather delicate portion of him... he YIPED! and ran as fast as his little legs would carry him, off to hide under the bed.

As to your comment about not trusting our dogs with the baby, if any of them are questionable, it would be our rat terrier (aka brat terrorist) who, coincidentally, is the only dog we have that our UPS guy is scared of.

"Breeds" of people: You'll notice of the three I named, I belong to two of them (I'm not Black) This has nothing at all to do with eugenics, nor am I disparaging any race (our euphamism for breed, kinda like someone with money is "eccentric" and someone without money is "bat- f***ing crazy". There are certain characteristics that are definable in all people and even in their DNA, that relate specifically to their race, and are present to one degree or another in all. These might relate to the shape of the head, nose, eye, etc., the color or type of hair, or any of several other factors. This is not prejudice, it is scientific fact and used in anthropology.
These do not address behavior in people, at least not that we make note of (to my knowledge, anyway. Anthropologists, if I'm in error, please correct.) Rather, we come up with theories like nature vs. nurture to address differences. That's not to disparage the theory, only to say that descriptions get into the realm of belief, or things we try to prove. We can show exemplars, but behavior is highly individualized, and we can't speak about all in this case, only all we've observed, during the time of observation, and attempt to draw conclusions from those. You can reject my premise, but you can't reject anthropology.

Also, to others, please note that I'm pointing no fingers, nor am I deflecting attention to other breeds or to guns. I think that some of the comparisons are valid, but those are not my arguments. My premise is that whatever a dog's selective breeding might have been, the greater factor in its behavior is it's upbringing. This is the very heart of nature vs. nurture, and arguments against a whole breed of dog are nothing more than this depiction:

It is a fear response to the stimulus of seeing something (or someone) that one considers a threat, and rather than removing the fear by educating oneself, we run away and remove the perceived threat (as if running away actually removed it) The guy at the lower left is afraid, because the guy on the upper left is a different color. Sure, we can find all kinds of statistics, and many of them are quoted here on INGO, often, such as the percentage of Black people killed by other Black people or the percentage of violent crimes attributable to a percentage of the population made up of young Black males. Those are "statistics", too, but yet, no one is expressing (nor should they) a desire for that whole group to be "killed on sight".

Please note that while I use the Black example here, it's only because that's what's often quoted here on INGO when discussions of crime come up.

Lastly, God bless you, Outdoor Dad, for adopting as you did. I wish your child to bring you much happiness and joy.

To all, as always,
Blessings,
Bill

 

[HamsterStyle]

Thanks for your answer.
My wife tells two stories that I think are illustrative. Both are from before she was my wife, but after she had the baby later known as my daughter (I adopted.)
1) She had, at the time the baby was born, at least two dogs. There may have been a third, but that is not relevant. The first was a chihuahua named Spike. Spike jumped up on her lap as she was feeding the baby and snarled and snapped at said baby. It was the last mistake Spike ever made, as she snapped a hand out and grabbed his head, and broke his neck without hesitation. Do not threaten the baby.
2) The other dog was a dachshund/pit mix. Lovable little guy. He'd curl up under the crib and sleep, and if my wife's now-deceased ex entered the room, he would wrinkle a lip and make it clear that he was not welcome (not that the ex entered the nursery that often) until the ex left the room, which happened quickly. Conversely, this dog (Mickey) was lying on the floor one day in a sunbeam, and small child comes crawling across the floor. She spied something that caught her interest, and as babies of that age do, it went straight into her mouth. Those two tiny little front teeth clamped down on a rather delicate portion of him... he YIPED! and ran as fast as his little legs would carry him, off to hide under the bed.

As to your comment about not trusting our dogs with the baby, if any of them are questionable, it would be our rat terrier (aka brat terrorist) who, coincidentally, is the only dog we have that our UPS guy is scared of.

"Breeds" of people: You'll notice of the three I named, I belong to two of them (I'm not Black) This has nothing at all to do with eugenics, nor am I disparaging any race (our euphamism for breed, kinda like someone with money is "eccentric" and someone without money is "bat- f***ing crazy". There are certain characteristics that are definable in all people and even in their DNA, that relate specifically to their race, and are present to one degree or another in all. These might relate to the shape of the head, nose, eye, etc., the color or type of hair, or any of several other factors. This is not prejudice, it is scientific fact and used in anthropology.
These do not address behavior in people, at least not that we make note of (to my knowledge, anyway. Anthropologists, if I'm in error, please correct.) Rather, we come up with theories like nature vs. nurture to address differences. That's not to disparage the theory, only to say that descriptions get into the realm of belief, or things we try to prove. We can show exemplars, but behavior is highly individualized, and we can't speak about all in this case, only all we've observed, during the time of observation, and attempt to draw conclusions from those. You can reject my premise, but you can't reject anthropology.

Also, to others, please note that I'm pointing no fingers, nor am I deflecting attention to other breeds or to guns. I think that some of the comparisons are valid, but those are not my arguments. My premise is that whatever a dog's selective breeding might have been, the greater factor in its behavior is it's upbringing. This is the very heart of nature vs. nurture, and arguments against a whole breed of dog are nothing more than this depiction:

It is a fear response to the stimulus of seeing something (or someone) that one considers a threat, and rather than removing the fear by educating oneself, we run away and remove the perceived threat (as if running away actually removed it) The guy at the lower left is afraid, because the guy on the upper left is a different color. Sure, we can find all kinds of statistics, and many of them are quoted here on INGO, often, such as the percentage of Black people killed by other Black people or the percentage of violent crimes attributable to a percentage of the population made up of young Black males. Those are "statistics", too, but yet, no one is expressing (nor should they) a desire for that whole group to be "killed on sight".

Please note that while I use the Black example here, it's only because that's what's often quoted here on INGO when discussions of crime come up.

Lastly, God bless you, Outdoor Dad, for adopting as you did. I wish your child to bring you much happiness and joy.

To all, as always,
Blessings,
Bill

I feel like there should be a microphone for you to drop as you walk away.

 

[ghuns]

My premise is that whatever a dog's selective breeding might have been, the greater factor in its behavior is it's upbringing.

Maybe.

I have two well adjusted, well behaved, well brought up Jack Russells. They live indoors, follow commands, and are not aggressive towards any members of their "pack".

We installed an underground dog fence when they were about a year old. They then had full run of almost all of our property. The first rat they ever caught a whiff of out in the barn, all that upbringing and training went right out the window. They became relentless killing mo-chines. I couldn't call them off if I wanted to. My daughter wanted to chase hers down and catch him. I told her to leave him alone. If you try to grab him when he's in that mode, he will bite you. I let them go to the point of exhaustion.

A couple hundred years of selective breeding trumped a year of training and couch cuddling like it never even happened. The thing is, that is exactly what I hoped they would do. I wanted that prey drive, that single minded aggression. If it has 4 legs and wanders into their territory, I want them to want it dead.

They are still well behaved lapdogs indoors and even outdoors as long they aren't on the trail of something. They have also figured out that their "play time" is a daily occurrence and when I call them in for the night, the come in, well, most of the time.

 

[yote hunter]

I guess owning and liking/loving a so called "pitbull is like owning and liking/loving Harley's ... If you have never owned one you just won't understand !!! I'm glad everyone don't like them cause everyone would own one and they are not for everyone, just like Harley's.... lmao, add purple were you see fit !

 

[seedubs1]

People who own dogs capable of seriously mauling people should be required to be licensed capable dog trainers. There's too many idiots out there with extend-o leashes and large dogs that aren't trained. How do I know????? I run 70-100 miles per week. I get charged by dogs at least once per week. It's not a big deal if it's punt-able. But if it's big enough to do real damage, I have a problem with it.

It's not the breed. It's the ability of the individual dog to do serious damage. I've been around awesomely trained pits. I've also been bit by a lab. Guess which one I had the state stick a needle in and inject a lethal dose of poison?

 

[BugI02]

People who own dogs capable of seriously mauling people should be required to be licensed capable dog trainers. There's too many idiots out there with extend-o leashes and large dogs that aren't trained. How do I know????? I run 70-100 miles per week. I get charged by dogs at least once per week. It's not a big deal if it's punt-able. But if it's big enough to do real damage, I have a problem with it.

It's not the breed. It's the ability of the individual dog to do serious damage. I've been around awesomely trained pits. I've also been bit by a lab. Guess which one I had the state stick a needle in and inject a lethal dose of poison?

Methinks he doth seem too proud of his 'accomplishment'

 

[phylodog]

Liberty

 

[OutdoorDad]

Would you be willing to spend time in jail if they killed someone? I don't think even the most hardcore supporter on your side would say the dog shouldn't be put down if they attack. I am interested in how much responsibility you are willing to bear for what they are capable of doing.

I can't find much to disagree with here.

 

[pack-indy]

My Helen Killer (also deaf Phylo) should be shot on site because she is has the potential to be vicious.

 

[yote hunter]

LOL, Great pic PI .... She looks pretty happy to me...

 

[yote hunter]

I think PDog adage of the ugly black scary gun is spot on when talking about these miss understood dogs... If you have never owned one how can you disagree with them being good dogs just by seeing stuff on the news or in a news paper... That's what people do about the ugly black guns ! They have never owned one and just because some nut job goes and shoots up somebody or someplace they are all bad.... This would be the last place I would of thought (gun owners) that people would of thought that these dogs are bad.... Funny how people are when they don't really know what they are talking about and just go's off what someone has told them or they seen on the news or a news paper... Really odd how this works, if this was a post about the ugly scary back guns killing or maiming people I think we would of all agreed they were wrong and said it wasn't the gun it was the guy behind the gun, same as its not the dog it the owner behind the dog (meaning the way the dog was raised/trained)... But after this I could be wrong, there may be gun owners who think the ugly black scary guns should be banned and just don't want to admit it ????

 

[JettaKnight]

I think PDog adage of the ugly black scary gun is spot on when talking about these miss understood dogs... If you have never owned one how can you disagree with them being good dogs just by seeing stuff on the news or in a news paper... That's what people do about the ugly black guns ! They have never owned one and just because some nut job goes and shoots up somebody or someplace they are all bad.... This would be the last place I would of thought (gun owners) that people would of thought that these dogs are bad.... Funny how people are when they don't really know what they are talking about and just go's off what someone has told them or they seen on the news or a news paper... Really odd how this works, if this was a post about the ugly scary back guns killing or maiming people I think we would of all agreed they were wrong and said it wasn't the gun it was the guy behind the gun, same as its not the dog it the owner behind the dog (meaning the way the dog was raised/trained)... But after this I could be wrong, there may be gun owners who think the ugly black scary guns should be banned and just don't want to admit it ????

So, I should just own one and then I'll be enlightened?

Part Of The Problem.

 

[eldirector]

There are some 53 MILLION dogs in the US.

Bully breeds make up 30-40% of those dogs. So, 21.2 MILLION on the high end.

There were 42 dog bite fatalities in the US last year. 27 of them "pit bulls".

So, you had a 1.27 * 10^-6 chance of getting killed by any particular "pit bull" last year.

Even if my numbers are off by an order of magnitude..... yeah......

 

[yote hunter]

So, I should just own one and then I'll be enlightened?

Part Of The Problem.

Question , Have you ever been around one of these dogs and of so were you attacked ??? If not then reread my post and enlighten yourself ...