Posted on 11/12/2009 8:43:54 AM PST by mnehring
I wrote that; unfortunately, 70 only posted the first half of it. You can see the whole thing (which is actually pro pitbull) on my profile page.
I agree that people tend to act like their dogs are furry kids, and don’t take it seriously that they need to be really responsible with them, but I don’t think the breed should matter. Yes, pit bull owners need to make sure their dogs have an outlet that is appropriate for their needs. So do border collies. Otherwise, in either case, the dog might turn out neurotic, obsessive, aggressive, or fearful, all of which can lead to dangerous behaviors. This is the case with many dogs with jobs. Malinois are another great example of a dog that needs a job. I really wish people would understand that EVERY dog owner should be mindful of how they treat their pets. It isn’t any better for a lab to run around loose compared to a pit bull, and most dog attacks are from dogs that are running loose or chained up, and of course, intact, regardless of breed.
What you read was from longelegantlegs’ “about” page. It was yet another round of her writing that supports with my points about pit bulls, and yet she fails to grasp this. She seems to have as much difficulty in understanding her own writing as she does in understanding mine. If you have problems with it discuss it with her. Good luck with that.
Yeah, I took it out of context, only skimmed it and didn’t understand it. Also, Obama’s health care plan will save medicine in the US, the stimulus will save the economy and cap and trade will save the earth.
“with” should not be there - editing error...
I agree that in principle it doesn’t matter what breed you have! Everyone should be a responsible owner. However, being responsible with a poodle and responsible with a bull dog are two very different things, and not everyone is aware or willing to provide what’s necessary for a happy pitbull; that’s what I was trying to convey.
I’d still love a concise summation of your main point. You don’t seem to be refuting my assertion that pitbulls aren’t genetically inclined to snap, but you do seem to be arguing that they’re genetically inclined to fight, which I agree with. Is that why you’re so convinced that you’re winning? :-)
Pit bulls are like Muslims. You never know when one will go off on a jihad!
Your attitude sucks. Why be a smartass?
Our vet has 2 pit bulls.
beautiful pup!
I disagree with you 100%......
But that is still the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time!!!!
I disagree with you 100%......
But that is still the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time!!!!
And, I am a proud Papa.
Back at ya. All except the word “smart”.
As for a summation how about this:
I think Pit bulls are particularly dangerous dogs because: 1) Pits are very strong for their size. 2) Dogs tend to exhibit the traits they were bred to have; Pit bulls have been bred to fight. 3) A greater than average percentage of pits will go after another dog or worse, a human, possibly an owner trying to defend their dog. 4) When a pit bull does attack the level of damage can be very high, possibly fatal. 5) There are quite a few pit bulls out there. 6) Pit bulls seem to have a higher than average level of irresponsible owners.
That doesn’t mean other dogs are not dangerous; they are. The chow is a dangerous dog, arguably being much more likely to attack a child without any warning than a pit bull. But when was the last time the average person saw one? I have not seen a chow in years. A Great Dane could inflict a LOT of damage, but they typically have a relaxed temperament and are also rare dogs.
I am at a loss for why posters come on to these threads and argue against such points. “My pit bull is wonderful!” I’m sure it is. Pits can have a great personality. I have met some of those dogs. But when my 6 yo is with me on the street and I see a pit bull towing some nimrod w/ his hat on sideways and his pants about to slide to the pavement I’m getting between that dog and my daughter (at the very least). If said nimrod is being towed by a yorkie I defy anyone to say they have the same level of concern. Call it pit bull (and owner) profiling if you want.
Here is a parallel (somewhat extreme) example. If you viewed a white woman in her mid 30’s park a minivan containing 2 kids in front of a federal building I expect you would be unconcerned. But if you saw a 20-something middle eastern looking bearded male park an unmarked delivery van in the same location would it attract your attention? Would you be concerned of danger? I hope so.
Someone may say, “I have a neighbor who drives such a vehicle and matches the 2nd description, and he is a great guy!” Wonderful. I’m glad for you. Invite him to dinner and enjoy his company. But an intelligent person would not say the profile is invalid because he or she is aware of profile matches that are harmless. Why do people on these threads argue against the validity of a “pit bull profile” because they know of gentle pit bulls?
I think Pit bulls are particularly dangerous dogs because: 1) Pits are very strong for their size.
Agree
2) Dogs tend to exhibit the traits they were bred to have; Pit bulls have been bred to fight.
Agree
3) A greater than average percentage of pits will go after another dog or worse, a human, possibly an owner trying to defend their dog.
Greater than what? Any other breed? Any other mis-handled dog? Any other unprovoked dog?
4) When a pit bull does attack the level of damage can be very high, possibly fatal.
Agree
5) There are quite a few pit bulls out there.
Sure.
6) Pit bulls seem to have a higher than average level of irresponsible owners.
Agree
What I do not agree with is the assertion that pits are genetically inclined to attack for no reason at all, regardless of upbringing and care. A dog can be predisposed to many things, but no domestic breed has been bred to attack whatever happens to be in it's path.
I mentioned that in my first post. "No one wants a dog that attacks it’s own family. Not a dog fighter, not a drug dealer, not anyone. It’s not an ingrained trait, it’s a behavioral issue that has a cause, and can be fixed."
And the next one "Not even man-hunting Mastiffs display the kind of random neurosis that people insist has been bred into the pit bull."
And the next one "My point, which you seem to be misunderstanding, is that no breed 'just snaps' because they've been bred for it. If a dog is vicious there is a reason behind it, and it's not some magical 'nutso' gene. "
If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear why. If not, I don't think we have any reason to argue. :-)
I am again impressed with what you get from what I write, including that you you think I had multiple paragraphs specific to owners. Again, I understand that the primary reason for your confusion continues to be you.
For example, I wrote: 3) A greater than average percentage of pits will go after another dog or worse, a human, possibly an owner trying to defend their dog.
You asked: Greater than what? Any other breed? Any other mis-handled dog? Any other unprovoked dog?
Greater than AVERAGE (actually written) as applied to the population of dogs as a whole (implied). Does it really need to be this difficult?
What I do not agree with is the assertion that pits are genetically inclined to attack for no reason at all, regardless of upbringing and care.
In spite of the fact that your sentence contradicts itself (if pits were "genetically inclined", it would be a reason, wouldn't it?) I agree with what you are trying to say. I have seen nothing to indicate that pits “snap” and go on rampages. I don’t recall ever saying or implying they do. If I have done so just post it and I’ll rectify it. If I haven’t, stop contesting points I never made.
I mentioned that in my first post. "No one wants a dog that attacks it’s own family. Not a dog fighter, not a drug dealer, not anyone. It’s not an ingrained trait, it’s a behavioral issue that has a cause, and can be fixed."
Perhaps a better way of saying it may be - no one wants a dog to attack something of someone it doesn't want attacked. Additionally, I expect you would agree that there are plenty of people who have pit bulls because they are very capable of attacking something or someone the owner does want attacked. But dogs can and do act autonomously, don’t they?
What do you think are the factors that contribute to a dog being dangerous? I have described specific reasons why I think pits can and should be considered dangerous. You have agreed with all of them except one. I would venture that you agree with #3 now that the incredibly subtle nuances of the sentence have been explained. What in the world is the mystery here? Do you think the magic missing ingredient to pit bulls being dangerous is that they “snap for no reason”? I do not believe they do. Are not the numbered points sufficient for you?
There are various ranges of both dogs and owners. A particularly docile dog may mitigate it being raised and trained badly. If a dog with bad temperament is paired with a particularly capable owner I would expect the dog to be kept within proper limits. There are also ranges of danger based on size and strength. A bad owner paired with a Pomeranian with a bad temperament may end up only scaring the carpet it pees on incessantly. But there are those breeds that if a bad owner or bad temperament show up it can be particularly dangerous. If it is both, it can be acutely dangerous. I contend that the factors that produce a dangerous situation show up in relation to the pit bull more often than average as applied to the population of dogs as a whole. Additionally, I contend that these factors result in another dog and/or a person being attacked at a higher rate as well.
I am not without information that agrees with me. From this site:
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2009/07/pit-bulls-lead-bite-counts-across-us.html
comes the following:
Pit Bulls Lead "Bite" Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties
DogsBite.org - City and county animal control departments in at least 16 U.S. states report that pit bulls are biting more than all other dog breeds. These states include: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. The often-quoted myth by pro-pit bull groups that pit bulls "do not bite more than other breeds" is categorically false. In addition to the fact that pit bulls are the leading biters, the pit bull bite is also the most likely dog bite to inflict serious and disfiguring injury. Last updated 10/10/09.
For the record, and in the hope of making your day, I do not believe there is a pit bull nutso gene, Ok? But at this point in the debate, why should it make a damn bit of difference whether a pit bull has a "nutso" gene or not?!? It is like feverishly debating that a full metal jacket bullet will blow out 50% less of your skull upon exit.
Are you a veterinarian?
You’re full of crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.