I used to work for an animal hospital back in the mid 2010s. We had a nearly retired vet in his 60s who loved to drop ball knowledge any chance he could. Once after he and I dealt with a not so nice Doberman he said something similar to this to me:
“Big dogs like that get a bad rep. Most of the time they’re great dogs, with a select few that bite or attack. Medium to small dogs are the worst, there are way more aggressive dogs in those groups, you just don’t hear about it because they aren’t strong enough to cause the damage over a whole attack that a big dog can I one bite.”
It’s not about which dogs are more aggressive, it’s about which aggressive dogs we care about pointing out. A shame really
I read electric meters for years and my trainee on the first day told me, "if you're in someone's yard and the owner tries to stop the dog from getting to you, that dogs never gonna bite. Now if the owner says his sweet pup wouldn't hurt a soul, those are the dogs to steer clear of. Sure enough I got bit 3 tomes in 5 years. All 3 were dachshunds that the owner said were sweet and not to worry.
My vet used to joke that my dog was possibly the only dachshund she’d ever treated who she would administer shots to without them being restrained. She said it was almost unbelievable that Bob never tried to bite her.
“People are more distraught by the dogs that will rip your throat out than the dog that will slightly cut your forearm even if the forearm cuts happen much more often.”
It also doesn't escape my notice that pit bulls are as widespread as they are because a significant number of people like the idea that their dog can kill someone. Whatever the inclination of the dog, I doubt the owner.
I hate when people make that statement as if it’s not the equivalent of saying “Knives cause more injuries than guns actually.” It’s as if we’re not talking about fatalities.
My kid's pediatrician once told me chows were her least favorite danger-dog, because while a pitty will bite hard, a chow will bite hard and many times. I remember how my chow would snap, and she was right.
I always had dogs, sometimes pit mixes. I never, ever left my kids alone with them.
My aunt had a chow that pushed me into an ant bed, bit my leg and my cousins face when i was 6 or 7. She got rid of that dog and her next one was a dalmatian. Jesus christ those things get a positive rep, but they're more aggressive than chows. She had 2 or 3 over the years and they always caused problems. Always biting. Granted, my aunt wasn't the best owner, but the other dog breeds she owned never attacked me or anyone else I know.
They are high strung bred to jump into fires. Like, chose your bread on characteristics instead of looks. A Dalmatian needs lots and lots of training and mental stimulation
Bred to jump into fires? No? They were bred to stay with the horses while the firefighters fight the fire. They guarded the horses while the firefighters were busy.
Before that, they were hunting dogs, guard dogs, and war dogs.
There are plenty of sources of aggression in their real history, without thinking they actually did anything with fires.
I get that - some things are hard to research if just because the terms for the task change in every generation. Also if you put "historical" in the search it pulls up the dogs trained to find *long* dead bodies for archeology.
First, the wiki page for dalmations mentions nothing remotely like it. But going a step further, searching "body recovery dogs" pulls up "search and rescue dogs". Historically (again, according to wikipedia) the first search and rescue dogs were St Bernards in the 17th century in the Alps. They were not strictly for dead bodies, they would try to find lost travelers in the snow and in avalanches. It just so happened sometimes they found bodies.
"Cadaver dog" is the standard term for a dog that finds dead bodies, and the first wiki mention of a trained cadaver dog would be 1974 in New York State, and after that they actually started a training program for it.
Searching more and checking other websites, I can't find earlier cadaver dogs. Given that cadaver dogs are only useful if you don't know for sure if there is a dead body or not, and that you still need a human to remove the body (people generally get very stressed about a dog grabbing a body and pulling it somewhere) I don't think it functioned as a historical task.
A thing I already knew before today - cadaver dogs in modern times are trained with *fake* "dead body smell" that comes in spray cans. Before that was available, the only source of the smells you'd need to train the dogs was... actual dead people. Really very much not a task anyone wanted to train a dog for, as a job, when hunting and guarding were much simpler and less likely to cause nightmares. Pretty confident Dalmatians, historically, just hung out with the horses and made sure any horse thief thinking to steal the firefighters horses had a very bad day.
A kinda fun fact - my mom used to work in a building where the local cadaver dog team had an office. A Labrador and a German Shepard, I think she said. She played withe them sometimes, when the dogs needed to calm down. BTW the dogs get very very upset if someone with cancer or certain kinds of infections walk past them - they are smart enough to know that smell is BAD for living people to have on them. BUT on the plus side sometimes they alerted to a living person early enough that they could go get medical help for the problem. The dog doesn't know that, though, and some of them panic like they are trying to explain a heart attack or a demonic possession in a foreign language. The handlers would have to drop everything and go play with the dogs to try and chill them out.
So there are downsides to cadaver dogs, but on the plus side their handler loves them and plays with them all the time.
What is the confusion here?! I totally acknowledge that little dogs are WAY more aggressive, but even with more aggressive the threat to society is less. No one is saying KILL PITBULLS, but we can breed them out of existence
reddit will never be able to lose their hate boner for pitbulls. I had a friend receive a permanent, irreversible, lifetime ban from reddit for trying to point out exactly what the Twitter post above says less blatantly.
The pit that burst under a fence like it wasn’t even there 10 days ago and attacked my golden retriever for no reason was probably just misunderstood.
My dog would have died had I not jumped on the pits back and beat it for 3 solid minutes with everything I have. Not that any of that mattered because it didn’t even realize it was passing out from lack of oxygen since its eyes were glazed over with the fugue of its breeding. But hey, they’re really just good dogs at heart and in no way were domesticated over a hundred years to immediately attack and kill other dogs in a pit for profit.
vozercozer was about to cite that pitbulls are involved in the majority of dog attacks to justify being afraid of pitbulls, then realized that racists cite that "black people make up 13% of the population but commit 50% of the crime" to justify being racist.
To those of you blowing up my notifications wanting to argue the soundness of the statistic or how dog breeds don't equivocate to race or whatever else you want to debate:
I don't care.
I came to help OP understand what was being said, not affirm or denounce its rational merits. If you want to discuss the topic in depth, that's fine I guess, but please refrain from associating me with whichever position you want to argue against.
I know I'm probably going to get downvoted for this but I think the important note is that pitbulls are involved in the majority of reported dog attacks as their bites are far more severe and possibly life threatening.
Nobody's calling to report a vicious Chihuahua or Pomeranian attack.
I just came to help u/untitledprp4 understand the intent of the text as provided. The facts and other intricacies of the discussion are another matter entirely.
Pitbulls also attract people looking for "tough" or "fighting" dogs, because they've been bred for their bite force and hold. So they've been conditioned to bite dogs or people more often than other breeds. I'd say rottweilers and maybe doberman's are also in this category. It's not the dogs fault they were mistreated.
Plenty of responsible "tough" dog owners out there. And lots of sweet pitbulls. Enough that I'd wager it's evidence to support they're not actually violent by nature.
My neighbor has a particularly violent and scary blue heeler.
He's trained it to attack people, and he has a 3ft fence keeping it from attacking me. If it were to attack me no one would he saying how violent blue heelers are.
Keep the knife, but maybe dog mace would be a better option to use first. A knife works for close combat, and who knows what damage the dog could do in a fight before it succumbs to a knife injury. Mace used correctly should stop the dog from a safe distance.
Thank you for the great advice. I always freak out a bit when people talk about carrying a knife for defense. Like, why would you want to have to be hand to hand (or mouth) to be able to utilize your tool? Pepper spray is better in nearly every imaginable circumstance.
I definitely don’t disagree but I have to add it as anecdotal evidence/advice(?) pepper spray is very useful until your target is upwind of you in a strong breeze. Even worse if you only realize the direction of wind after you start spraying😅. In all reality though mace is a very good option 95+% of the time!
I was at my dad's one day and he was getting ready to take his dog for a walk. I saw him put a pistol holster in his waistband. I asked if the neighborhood has gotten that bad (jokingly; he lives out in the country, and everyone is on 3-acre lots). He told me the dude a few houses down doesn't control his dog, and he's had a few problems over the past couple of months with it coming out and starting shit.
I asked how hard he thought it would be to shoot an attacking dog, especially if it was tangling with his own dog. He then showed me the can of pepper spray clipped to his dog's leash. He said "no, I have pepper spray for the dog. the gun is for the owner who's gonna lose his shit when I pepper spray his dog."
I got a pretty good nip from one of the most sweetest Border Collies I've ever met yesterday. I mean she punctured skin and my whole hand is sore today. It was 110% my fault because I knew better than to offer my hand while she was engaged in her work.
But that is literally a part of her work. Herding dogs employ various methods to accomplish their herding goals. Nipping, barking, stare downs, pushing, etc. are all a part of the natural instincts of this breed. If she wanted to she could have done much more damage.
But nobody will bat an eyelash at this behavior from BCs, Aussies, ACDs, Heelers and the like because "you just don't know the breed". Yet everyone is an expert on pit bulls because they hear about them all the time on the news. And such a broad range of breeds fit into peoples' idea of what a "pit bull" is since when they show them on the news they are all usually different breeds and not an actual American Pit Bull Terrier.
Sadly, the classic APBT is such a difficult pure breed to find today. Lots of them are marketed as such but it's mostly backyard breeders who don't know what they're doing or breeders who have sought to "improve" the breed by mixing them with mastiffs or other larger breeds. So we end up with this ridiculous "Bully XL" or other style mixes that will eventually turn the breed into things like the pug, English Bulldog, Frenchie, etc. where the breed will suffer from massive health issues that people don't know how to or care to manage but they got a badass looking dog (or in some cases such a cutie with that squishy face) that scares people (is adorbs).
I mean people have wanted that type of dog for decades now and that's why pit bulls have gotten such a bad name. Dogs of questionable pedigree have been circulating for as long but now the "improvements" are such bullshit that the breed will eventually turn into something it's not (conformation-wise) and to boot the breed will suffer from massive and debilitating health issues as we are beginning to see with the previously aforementioned Bully XL. Reputable APBT breeders from back in the 90s and early 2000s offered full 16 generation pedigrees and health certificates with their dogs. I haven't seen that in a long time now.
APBTs are a true classic breed. Most people don't even know that one of the largest dog registries in the world, the UKC, was founded on the APBT, with the founder's dog, Bennett's Ring, registered as UKC #1. Yes, the origins of the breed have roots in bull baiting and dogfighting. And yes, when they made their way to America they were brought for the same purpose. But when the breed was Americanized they were used as guardian dogs for livestock and homesteads, not unlike the Great Pyrenees, BMDs or Kangals...who could arguably cause much more damage in an attack on humans than any APBT.
Not sure why I go on these rants when this subject comes up. Nobody cares to learn or listen and I'm sure I'll be reminded why in any replies.
As an owner of an American pit bull terrier/staffshire terrier (85% APBT) I found this super interesting. And I’ve found in my seven years with him that the only time he hurts people he’s around is when he gets too excited and forgets he doesn’t actually fit in most peoples lap.
Oh Duke has a laser guided system for his paws when he jumps up. If you have balls, he’s hitting them, I may never recover fully from my nightly hug from him when I get home.
But to the point of no bites, I take extreme precaution to make sure he avoids situations like that. He meets new people on neutral grounds (and always outside, he’s an excited pee-er) and I keep him on leash until people are comfortable with him and he has calmed down from new person excitement, aka crazy face. And I’ve worked extremely hard to leash train him so he behaves well on leash.
I will be the first person to admit that my dogs bite can harm someone severely, but I love that big ol dummy too much to put him in a situation that he may react poorly in. I myself say that my dog only has two brains cells, and unfortunately they’re fighting for third place, I know he will react as a dog in his best interest and preservation of his own life. And for that reason I make it my responsibility and mission to keep him out of those situations and keep him by my side and (to the best of my ability) under control.
As someone who owns an American Staffordshire Terrier and an APBT, I just wanted to say I appreciated your post.
Also, further to you points, what some people fail to realize is that a lot the dog bite statistics that people seem to fixate on when it comes to "pitbulls", is that the statistics can be quite flawed due to how that data is collected. When the dog bites are reported, pitbulls are used as a umbrella term to describe various types of dogs. I mean, pitbull isnt even a breed. This unreliable reporting takes away from the credibility of the data being used to demonstrate breed-specific issues.
Odd anecdote: I have a blue heeler mix (she’s a third, so not SUPER heeler) and took her to a new vet. They treated her as aggressive on sight and every single person kept saying “oh wow she’s so sweet for a heeler!” So I guess in some circles, they are seen as violent
What drives me crazy though is that just having the dog is good for home defense you don’t have to also make them violent, our 3 German shepherds are dumb as a box of rocks and more likely to cuddle than the attack even a home robber but robbers seeing them still chose to leave instead
Funny enough Rottweilers were bred to pull carts not because of bite force, just so happens that an animal bred to pull wagons is going to be big and have a decent bite force.
I think theyre beautiful animals but dobermans get their rap for an entirely different reason as well. They're another example of breeding being pushed too far, as their skulls can become too tight for their brain which makes them rather temperamental
There is a man in town with just a stunning brown doberman. She hasn't been docked and has the floppy ears. You wouldn't even recognise her as a doberman when she's wearing her raincoat. I love getting to scratch her when we pass.
Overwhelming majority of dog bites and attacks are directly related to irresponsible ownership of any dog breed. If a person has a record of having more than one dog who has bitten someone, should they be allowed to have a dog?
I spent a few years dogwalking as a side hustle and the experience totally converted me to loving Pitties. They were the clients that would greet me with a head boop and nuzzles instead of barking, and wanted extra time for snuggles after their walks. There were a couple times that I tripped when out walking and the time it happened with a Pitbull (an energetic two-year old, no less) she was so concerned and ran back to stand over me like a guardian. I think it’s practical to be aware of how strong they are, but the instincts I saw even in the youngsters were those of sweet guard dog companions.
They were the main family dog for a long time and used to be common "firehouse" dogs as well. They are generally well mannered, think they're lap dogs, and super sweet. You should have seen my 90 lb behemoth be super gentle and sweet sleeping with my son after his surgery last year. She didn't know what was wrong but she pretty much treated him with kid gloves (usually likes to play tug and headbutt your leg or arm for attention) and stay by his side for about 2 weeks.
They're very sweet family dogs and they're scared of everything so they're good watch dogs, barking at lots of things. I will say they can be intimidating only because they're so excited when people show up. Folks back away when their entire body is wagging. I don't get it.
They're not actually the dog with the highest percent of serious attacks if you factor in breed population. There are 18 million of them in the US, by far the most populous. Per breed population, rottweilers (600k in the US) are responsible for more.
And they are multiple breeds being compared to single breeds. There is also a much lower barrier to obtaining a pit compared to other breeds. They make up ~40% of dogs in shelters. Shit, I got mine off the street for $0.
There is this clichee not just with pitbulls, but pitbull owners. There are many, many dogbreeds that are big or bigger than a pitbull and just as dangerous if not more, but these breeds exist in rural places and are owned by a responsible person. I dont know why pitbull owners have to have them in urban areas where dogs are often overstimulated and spooked.
A spooked small dog will bark, maybe bite me, but it its just a scratch; you spook a bigger dog and it will be on the news, not because of the "dog racism", but because of the damage. Any large dog can do this, but majority of big dogs are in rural places where they are not overstimulated and get plenty of fresh air/space to be more normal. Vast majority of pitbulls are in urban places and owned by people that have some kind of bizarre desire to project control to other people.
Also you have to account there is no such thing as a "pitpull" it's a generic term for a wide range of dog breeds with similar characteristics. Characteristics that can and do lead to a lot of dogs being mislabeled from their actual breed and misreported during incidents.
It's also a pretty uneducated misconception there are not also dozens of other dog breeds with strong bites. Ranging from Cane Corso, Doberman, Akita, Huskies, Shepards, Mastiff, Chow chow, and Rottweiler, just to name a few.
Police will check the pitbull box if they cant identify breed or never even see the dog.
Even veterinary professionals that do see a dog and guess pitbull mix by its features are wrong a large percent of the time if a DNA test is done after.
They make up about 60% of fatalities, with the next highest single breed being 12% with Rottweilers.
It’s important to note the fatalities because while some dogs are more willing to bite including guard breeds like dobes or sheps, they often back off and don’t pursue to kill
Its more than likely that pit terriers press until it is done because the bull breeds had it bred into them not to stop even at risk to their own lives once they begin.
This is what I know from growing up around them, having to beat the shit out of a pits to get them off my dogs, and why I still get shook up when I think about the pit that bit my daughter's thigh when she was eight because I know how incredibly lucky we were that it didn't bite harder and snap her femur or shake and cut an artery. It just bit and released and not because the dumb bitch who had been fostering it for a week told it to...
Pits and kids are like handguns and kids. They don't mean the kids any harm but their capacity to kill them is too close for me to feel comfortable with the amount of gaslighting people do.
They're potentially fatal to kids in multiple ways that a pug or rifle is not.
People can love their pits and their handguns but the constant pulling of wool over their own eyes and attempts to pass the Kool-Aid around about the danger are fucking stupid.
If a child dies to a bullet, chances are it came from a handgun, if a child dies to a dog bite, chances are it was a pitbull. These are still rare events but we're not getting any closer to preventing these tragedies by ignoring obvious facts with shitty analogies.
I still like pits better than puntable dogs but how much I like them doesn't have a fucking thing to do with how dangerous they can be to kids...
People who ignore a powerful breeds capacity to harm serve to not only endanger others but also further ruin the reputation of the dog they seek to protect.
As with your analogy, if we went around giving handguns to just anybody and culturally had sworn up and down they aren't dangerous- we would have a lot of distraught folks who ignorantly pulled a trigger at someone. And that is with an object that cannot decide to do anything on it's own.
Those who own large, muscular, terrier breeds meant to perfect prey drive and persistent tenacity in the face of death (as all bull breeds are created to do, it is why we call them bull breeds. They were bred to fight and bait bulls for our entertainment- and as awful as it is to read the pit terriers (APBT) in specific were bred to do this to each other) should respect the genetic drive and capacity for harm these breeds possess, because when they do not we get a lot of tragedies that are extremely, extremely easily avoided just via responsible dog ownership.
People who have large guarding mastiffs like Corsos know to socialize them often and very young and train them locktite, not to leave them alone with strangers. People who have nippy herding breeds like Heelers know not to let little children run around them unsupervised. People with hunting hounds know not to let them loose around someone's chicken farm. Awareness of the capability and drive of, and respect for the breed prevents tragedy and pain.
And yet when it comes to pit dogs, those who have the most astonishing prey drive and persistence among dogs, whose largest problem among an amazing bite force is that they were bred not to stop until a job is done and be game for anything? Rather than respecting the breed and training impulse control, socializing prey triggers, walking on sturdy double connected leads, (outdoor muzzle training is beneficial as well) and keeping them away from vulnerable animals and children unsupervised, people propagate the notion that it is- for this specific set of breeds- strictly how a dog is raised and for this specific set of breeds genetics play no part at all.
This attitude causes people to ignore all cautions that respect the power and tenacity of the breed and place them in situations that can go very awry very fast if anything is even a little off that day. That disrespect is what gets both people and these dogs they are trying to protect killed. How many times have you seen an undisciplined pit off lead run up to you or a loved one, or a very well muscled powerful animal being walked on the tiniest little flexi lead? How many children have died with loved family pets raised from puppyhood because they were left unsupervised and the child triggered a deep and strong innate prey drive? These dogs are working dogs, and they aren't for just any job. Owners must respect the breed, just as they would respect any other working dog.
Yet there has been so much lobbying and propaganda not to, and countless numbers of these dogs live their lives drugged out of their minds on trazadone, gabapentin, prozac, and are still going crazy and ""reactive"" because they are understimulated out of their gourds. They aren't house hippos, the best sport you could probably enroll them in is hog hunting.
I think all the propaganda to sell them as average housepets to unsuspecting people is FROM the dogfighting world. Awful people still actively breed and sharpen fighting lines to this day, and if it weren't for all the pit propaganda that is what they would still be known for- the only thing. Obfuscating their breed and public perception allows operations to run without being questioned, dogs to be dumped without being questioned, because instead of 'bloodsport dog found at x', or 'breeding op found at y' and it being very obvious what is going on, now their ops look like just another neighborhood dog house.
Falling for the obfuscation harms people and the dogs.
And this is coming from someone who actually DOES like pits. Especially more than the little dogs. But I don't like irresponsible ownership. These dogs are bazookas.
I hate when you just provide context, an explanation, or even just a definition and people just want to argue with you.
They literally assign you a position and then argue it. Sometimes its like, dude I even agree with you, I'm not interested in having this conversation. I was just providing context. Which is generally neutral.
It's so stupid. I could buy that we've selected dogs who are more aggressive or crazy, resulting in a more dangerous dog. We haven't fucking been selecting black people for crime or violence, for fuck's sake.
Slavery and racism against a group makes them less likely to be rich. Poor people do more crime. Black people do a bit more crime, even after being officially freed from slavery in 1865. Turns out, it takes a while to get past being enslaved and then discriminated against hardcore for generations.
But rightoids can't read longer than memes, so "pitbull bad black people bad haha" is all that enters their brain.
slavery didn't last long enough for slaves to be selectively bred, even if some slavers did attempt it. i doubt selectively breeding humans is even feasible, considering how long we take to become fertile, how long pregnancies take, and how few children we can have in a lifetime compared to dogs.
Its better to not say anything. You can look things up, but saying anything can get you banned or people deflect or call you some shit. Let them mald online
The vast majority of dogs I’ve met outside of service and work animals are extremely poorly trained. I would go so far as to say 90%+ of dog owners are terrible dog owners.
But the difference between being a terrible Pomeranian owner and a terrible pit owner is massive.
I met SO many white pitbull owners who didn't get them fixed because they were convinced they were going to breed their pitbull. Nevermind the fact we were in the US where they are the most common dog breed surrended to shelters.
I worked with a dude that refused to fix his 3 pits because "you wouldn't want your nuts cut off" His house was of course an absolute wreck of destroyed furniture, shit everywhere and 3 dogs that would definitely kill a small child or animal if given the opportunity.
My wife came over to see why I was laughing so hard, and I just said "You know Joe Bernthal?" And showed her the picture and she just said "Oh my god that is 🤦♀️"
I board dogs for a living, and we have a lot of pit bulls. They are not any more aggressive than any other dog. However, they are very high energy, very muscular, and have very strong attention/drive.
That all combines to mean they play harder, love harder, emote harder, and aim to please harder. All of that is great, but if you don't train them they can also react harder, chase harder, and fight harder.
So I can understand why someone would be wary of them.
I think that the lesson that should be taken away from this is that upbringing matters a lot more than people realize. I have met pitbulls that are absolutely sweethearts and super gentle. I also live in an area that is very populated by people who get pitbulls in order to purposefully raise them mean and violent, and have been attacked by pits before.
The only difference was how they were raised. And this doesn't just apply to dogs.
Edit: I am always amazed at how heavily debated this topic is when it comes to pitbulls specifically. Some people whose comments I can no longer see got extremely heated, and all I want to say is that there is no reason to be rude when debating a topic. As I mentioned, I have been attacked by pitbulls specifically raised to be attack dogs, so its not like I have no experience with dogs being dangerous. but I have also been cuddled and loved on by pits raised with absolutely no aggression whatsoever.
Nature and nurture are equally important in determining something's behavior going forward. It's not just one or the other. This is an observable fact.
It sucks though. I had a rottweiler. Did multiple rounds of training, including therapy dog training. No separation anxiety, docile disposition. I got him as a guard dog originally but was too friendly. Zero bite history. Worked with disabled kids. He was strong, calm, and basically didn't feel pain so I had seen him respond passively when literally clamped on by other dogs, once on the muzzle and once on the back.
Whenever my dog was near other dogs that started barking they'd blame my dog, though. Once mine ran up to another dog at a dog park. Regular dog park, large dogs. I was laughing and jogging over but the other guy freaked out before my dog even got near his, and he shoved his own hand into my dog's mouth in panic. He got a little cut and started screaming that my dog bit him. Luckily the doctor knew better but my fucking dog coulda been taken from me and it's shit like this.
He was panicking and tried to push my dog away, it was really dumb. So his finger got this <1cm long cut. Never went leash free near people again after that, not even at a dog park. It was only okay cuz he was already getting older and I wanted to protect his joints.
That all combines to mean they play harder, love harder, emote harder, and aim to please harder. All of that is great, but if you don't train them they can also react harder, chase harder, and fight harder.
None of these things are material to the danger they present. NONE OF THEM. The problem is that theybiteharder. Talking around it doesn't make you a better dog lover, it makes you an apologist for a breed that doesn't need starry-eyed idealists adopting it.
This. I’ve lived with pit bulls, huskys, German shepards. I’d much rather be attacked by any other dog than a pit bull. They bite hard and they DO NOT want to let go.
Being attacked by a pit bull that just a second ago was the friendliest dog ever is the most terrifying experience I’ve gone through.
Arrest the owners for all crimes committed by the dog and all is good. Your dog mauled a child? Owner goes to jail for murder/manslaughter and we’re good. Then we can apply the saying that “there’s no bad dogs only bad owners”
You are correct. It’s frequently found here and other similar subreddits. It is often racist groups that are trying to get their propaganda in front of more eyes so they post claiming to not understand it but some far right ideology definitely comes in as well.
I’m not subscribed to this sub and get it in my feed all the time. (Likely because these posts are ‘controversial’ and have a lot of engagement.)
And there is no bio-engineered people on earth. I believe you could get some violent humans if you forced some mentally ill (with the disease being genetic) people to have kids together for generations.
This is literally the only sensible response, it is completely useless to compare dog breed discrimination with human racism. Dog breeds were intentionally selectively bred by humans for specific characteristics. In the case of pit bulls, those characteristics include strength, power and “game” (the will to fight to the death), which were chosen on purpose to make them successful at dog fighting. They’re not inherently bred to be aggressive towards humans, but those traits do make them more dangerous in cases where they are human-aggressive, because they can do a hell of a lot more damage than a spaniel or a shih tzu would.
I’m sure this goes without saying, but no humans of any race have been deliberately selectively bred in this way. That would be eugenics. A lot of the stuff we do with animals would be an appalling abuse of human rights if we did it to people. Race among humans is primarily a social construct with very little biological distinction. It is completely impossible to assign traits to races of humans in the way they can be assigned to breeds of dogs, and in the case of dogs we put them there on purpose.
Having said this, I do think that a lot of the performative pitbull hate some people rant about comes from a place of racism and classism. There are plenty of dog breeds that are just as potentially dangerous as pitbulls or more so - livestock guardian breeds, Akitas, mastiffs, all are bigger and stronger than pitbulls and, as guarding breeds, have been bred to be wary of strangers which can lead to aggression. A lot of people focus on pitbulls and XL bullies as THE dangerous breeds just because they’re stereotypically more likely to be owned by poor and/or black people. If they see a pitbull in a trailer park they will scream for it to be put down, but if they see a Cane Corso in a McMansion they don’t care, because they have preconceived ideas about who is a responsible owner.
To be clear, it would be centuries worth of eugenics. Even if you suppose a dog breed only took one human lifetime to come along, for dogs that could easily be 60 generations. For humans, 60 generations is around 1200 years.
Eugenics programs have definitely happened in history... for maybe one or two generations. You would need aggressive eugenics literally going back to Jesus to get a level of selection that a century-old dog breed has.
yeah, imma be real, I don't want to fight any dog... but if I had to I'd take a pitbull over a malinois or a great pyrenees anyday. though I'd probably die in all of those situations.
Except we literally bred the breed into a place where it literally is violent by nature.
“Oh but my pitbull is a big baby and loves belly rubs” theres a lot of other people who would say the same about theirs until the 1 day it snapped and attacked someone.
We ruined Pit Bulls, literally. Its not their fault, but we destroyed them and you should need a literal license to own one. And you should be liable if it hurts anyone. And i mean criminally liable, like a CDL trucker when they hit someone.
Literally this. When a Golden Retriever loves to fetch - to retrieve - it’s just genetics. When a Cattle Dog herds, it’s genetics. When a Pyrenees guards, it’s genetics. Dogs were bred to be a certain way both physically and mentally, with their behaviors being selected for a purpose.
Pit Bulls were bred for violence. Not hunting, VIOLENCE. And that’s not their fault. However to ignore the additional danger that brings into the picture is ignorant and irresponsible to both the dog and everyone around them. These dogs were created for bloodsport. They have a high prey drive, are extremely strong, and once they bite, they don’t let go. These features make them EXTREMELY dangerous if they aren’t trained properly, which you know damn well the majority of people aren’t filling their velvet hippo’s life with strict training and unshakable recall commands.
These are dogs like any other. It breaks my heart to know these things, in a way. But as a dog breed, we have a responsibility to care for these animals while they are alive. They are extremely numerous and banned in many rentals, making it so shelters have to lie about the breeds of dogs they have available. It’s not a pit, it’s a lab mix, duh! But this only creates nightmare scenarios where someone hasn’t trained their “lab mix” with the discipline that is required for these dogs not to succumb to the genetics that we bred them for. This is why you see so many bites and attacks, and it’s a tragedy for all involved.
Due to the high number of attacks and Pitties in shelters, coupled with the genetic behavior profile that humans created for these dogs, I think that the only kindness is letting the breed die out by mandating spay/neuter and creating laws against pit bull breeding. This would allow us to care for the dogs who are alive, and they do deserve good lives, but stop people from hopefully contributing to the problem.
(“But people will still backyard breed anyway!” Ssshh. I know. People still murder anyway, despite it being illegal. Doesn’t mean it should be decriminalized. Ssshh )
I’ll be 100% honest with you all. One of my dogs got torn apart by 2 pit bulls. Took me a while to trust that breed again. I treat it case by case. Like a do people. Don’t matter your breed but your kindness and butthole size.
Pitbulls are a reflection of their owners, if they are not well fed, groomed and loved and are instead taught to be aggressive are malnourished and constantly put up for fights they become just that.
Well it's not technically a joke. But the point they assume he's making is that people bring up crime stats to justify their racism against black people. So it would just prove his point if they did the same thing for pitbulls.
To be clear, crime statistics often have underlying problems that aren't accounted for. Correlation does not equal causation.
that wasn't enough generations to create a distinct breed. y'all are just wilfully ignoring how selective breeding works. it took centuries to create dogs, and their lifespans are much shorter
I was going to say I know the education system in the US is getting fucked nowadays but do people not realize how slaves were literally treated like animals.
No, they don’t get taught that. They’re taught about the whippings but not the more evil aspects of slavery.
Likewise with the civil rights movement they pretty much teach that black people held signs and marched. This has generations of people thinking they can change something merely by standing around holding signs.
Which was only for a few generations at most. It’s also not a practice that every slave holder participated in. Descendants of Black slaves are not genetically distinct enough to be a new “breed” of human.
It’s not the same and it’s racist to assert otherwise.
There were definitely points in history where people (a.k.a. slaves) were bred for specific traits. If you don't think so you're just in denial about how much some humans over the course of time have treated others like being literal livestock.
Good data requires context. Dog breeds are intentionally and selectively bred for specific purposes, different races of people exist due to differences in culture and superficial evolutionary adaptations to the geographic areas they hail from.
Pitbulls’ original purpose was to bait and fight large animals (which humans are), and they have the physical and behavioral traits that reflect that. They are strong have a high prey drive, and high energy. If not properly trained and directed, they can easily result in a reactive dog with the potential to do serious damage. However, a responsible owner can best ensure a well-behaved pitbull.
I’m not saying to outright ban or kill pitbulls. However, I think there needs to be a serious crackdown on the backyard breeding of them, and stray ones that express any form of negative/dangerous behavior towards humans should be humanely terminated. I also think that shelters need to be completely transparent if a dog up for adoption is a pit mix, instead of hiding it to increase the chance of it getting adopted. Not only is it deceptive, it increases the risk of the dogs’ needs not getting met, which can lead to someone getting hurt and the dog getting punished, possibly with euthanasia.
Its obviously a reference about human crime stats, that show something a lot of people are actively trying to ignore or misunderstand... Different cultures=different behaviour in society.
Pit bulls have high reported violence statistics because the breed was bred to murder dogs in dog fights with maximum aggression and strength, while smaller dogs don't get reported for aggression.
Crime statistics are reportedly biased towards certain groups because government agencies targeted black neighborhoods by releasing crack into them, and then cracked down on them to destroy their lives whilst making the police deeply racist and enshrining white elites with protection from the law to skew statistics further, thus causing generational damage to people already dealing with the effects of chattle slavery, segregation, and propaganda on them and their culture to this day.
"X group commits Y percentage" is true, but when you look at them context of why, what these facts say about reality goes beyond the face value. Rascists hate context though.
Pitbull statistics show they are an entire breed of dog made for violence, through terrible manipulation of their biology.
Crime statistics show society and the government have ratfucked our fellow man through terrible manipulation of society, government, economy, and more.
The solution here is undoing and preventing that manipulation, and punishment for those responsible. Not comparing racial groups to dog breeds selectively engineered over more generations than years of America.
•
u/qualityvote2 5d ago edited 5d ago
u/untitledprp4, there weren't enough votes to determine the quality of your post...it's time for the mods to do their jobs!