What is 'Lobes up to these days? Being a good dude...



http://dogs.littlethings.com/pit-bull-video-walking-dead/?utm_source=VRC&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=pit-bull-video-walking-dead

TL:DW--
Jon Bernthal is heading an awareness campaign to let people know that most pit bulls are great family dogs. They encourage people to send in pictures of themselves with their pit bulls to let the rest of the country know that they are the majority.

Comments

  • Can't say I like this.

    Sure a dog's temperament is influenced by the environment in which it was raised, but it's far from that simple. One can raise a pit bull to generally behave with its own family, but it interacting with others is just dangerous, I don't give a shit what the owners say. Many owners seem to think that if they raise it 'right' and it's well behaved around them it will have the same disposition to others, and that's just wrong. Pit bulls were specifically bred to attack. Originally they were bred to attack bears and bulls & other large animals (no bullshit!), then were cross-bred with terriers to be more agile for attacking other dogs, and some for pets/work. Today most are a random mix.

    The simple fact of the matter is, pit bulls and rottweilers account for the overwhelming majority of dog attacks, with the pit bull attacks being the most dangerous between the two because they usually fail to give any warning that they are about to attack and when they bite they violently shake their head creating vicious wounds. They're basically little land sharks specifically bred to attack things about their size, making them dangerous, especially to other dogs and children, no matter how they've been raised.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    I haven't extensively studied the science behind this. I will say that if the statistics show that these are the most dangerous breed, but these are also breeds that are actively trained to fight and/or for "security", then that would make sense that they are the most prone to lash out and be aggressive. Causality does not equal causation.
  • I too am not educated about this, but I have known a couple of pitbulls that were the dogs of friends of mine and both were very sweet dogs, and I am not someone who was constantly around (and thus really well known to the dog). I was never not at ease, and I am someone who can be intimidated by a large dog. In fact the same couple that had one of the two pitbulls that I have known had a German Shepherd that I was incredibly uncomfortable being around.

    Like I said, I don't know the facts and I'm not saying that I have a right to a strong opinion on the matter, but anecdotally it seems to me that if those were sweet, good natured dogs there should be a right way to bring them up. Those owners obviously did something right.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    I'm with @ghm3. I actually think promoting pit bulls as 'great family dogs' is highly irresponsible. They are a breed specifically bred to fight and attack. All dogs are unpredictable but pit bulls are especially dangerous because of the power of their jaws.

    I've heard a lot of pit bull owners and fans say that small breeds are more likely to bite. I don't know if that's true - I guess it could be by sheer numbers - but either way, I know which one of rather have hanging off my ankle.
  • It's certainly true that you can have several pit bulls that are great animals and won't ever attack anyone their whole life. But the point is it's impossible to know this will be the case, regardless of how well you raise it. Siegfried & Roy trained with countless tigers and lions and other cats for decades without any incident. Then one day a tiger decided to maul one of them without warning or provocation. Why? Because it's a tiger. It was only acting within its nature.

    Pit bulls were specifically bred by humans to attack, we intentionally bred this trait into them. It does not mean that every single pit bull will attack if given the chance, but the point is there is no way to know if one will tap into those genetics and suddenly attack another dog or child without provocation or warning. It happens consistently, and I very much doubt that most of the owners are irresponsible dog owners and no doubt many say it's always been the sweetest dog, because it has been up until the point it decided to maul their neighbor's shih tzu or child.
  • Pit bulls for most of their history have been known as "nanny dogs", being a child's pet, a military war hero
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Stubby
    , and a showbiz dog (little rascals) and the buster brown shoe ad dog.

    http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/what-it-about-pit-bulls/17294

    true, they are strong, but they were bred to be aggressive towards OTHER animals, and recently abused dogs being raised to be aggressive towards other dogs. Pits that showed aggressiveness towards humans were not continued to be bred. They are a terrible guard dog and continuously show a lower score on aggressiveness tests than German Shepards and Dobermans.

    http://hubpages.com/hub/10-Most-Aggressive-Dog-Breeds-Temperament-Ratings-and-Information

    They do have a perception problem now, because rap music made them an accessory and symbol of manliness, rather than a pet. A believe that a properly trained pit is no more dangerous than any other animal of its size, which is why i don't give it any more thought when my 20 month old daughter plays with my brother's pit bull.
  • ghm3 said:



    Pit bulls were specifically bred by humans to attack, we intentionally bred this trait into them. It does not mean that every single pit bull will attack if given the chance, but the point is there is no way to know if one will tap into those genetics and suddenly attack another dog or child without provocation or warning. It happens consistently, and I very much doubt that most of the owners are irresponsible dog owners and no doubt many say it's always been the sweetest dog, because it has been up until the point it decided to maul their neighbor's shih tzu or child.

    Pit bulls were never bred to attack humans. They did bait bulls in the 1800s.
    https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls

    Great Danes were used as German war dogs in WW2. They are bigger than pits, but no one judges scooby doo or marmaduke based off of what that breed was originally used for generations ago.
  • jpthet said:

    Pit bulls for most of their history have been known as "nanny dogs", being a child's pet, a military war hero
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Stubby
    , and a showbiz dog (little rascals) and the buster brown shoe ad dog.

    http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/what-it-about-pit-bulls/17294

    true, they are strong, but they were bred to be aggressive towards OTHER animals, and recently abused dogs being raised to be aggressive towards other dogs. Pits that showed aggressiveness towards humans were not continued to be bred. They are a terrible guard dog and continuously show a lower score on aggressiveness tests than German Shepards and Dobermans.

    http://hubpages.com/hub/10-Most-Aggressive-Dog-Breeds-Temperament-Ratings-and-Information

    They do have a perception problem now, because rap music made them an accessory and symbol of manliness, rather than a pet. A believe that a properly trained pit is no more dangerous than any other animal of its size, which is why i don't give it any more thought when my 20 month old daughter plays with my brother's pit bull.

    Aggressiveness is irrelevant when it can't translate to damage. A chihuahua may be irritating as hell but it's just not capable of doing even close to the damage a pit bull can do. To suggest a properly trained pit bull is no more dangerous than properly trained golden retriever, for example, is just not true. They have a perception problem because they have a reality problem of being an attack dog breed that inflicts serious damage when they attack (often with no warning like other dogs give), and with more frequency than other (non attack dog) breeds. To deny this would be to refuse to acknowledge the nature of what we specifically bred them to be, it would be like denying that Thoroughbreds are faster than your run of the mill paint horse.
    jpthet said:

    ghm3 said:



    Pit bulls were specifically bred by humans to attack, we intentionally bred this trait into them. It does not mean that every single pit bull will attack if given the chance, but the point is there is no way to know if one will tap into those genetics and suddenly attack another dog or child without provocation or warning. It happens consistently, and I very much doubt that most of the owners are irresponsible dog owners and no doubt many say it's always been the sweetest dog, because it has been up until the point it decided to maul their neighbor's shih tzu or child.

    Pit bulls were never bred to attack humans. They did bait bulls in the 1800s.
    https://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls

    Great Danes were used as German war dogs in WW2. They are bigger than pits, but no one judges scooby doo or marmaduke based off of what that breed was originally used for generations ago.
    I never once said they were specifically trained to attack humans, I said they were bred to attack other dogs, which happen to be about the size that children are, and they don't care much for the distinction. Sharks don't intentionally attack humans, but we're roughly the size of their prey, hence we have shark attacks.

    http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs.php

    "By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2014, a report by Animals 24-7 shows that pit bulls (307) and rottweilers (89) and their mixes contributed to 67% of the total recorded fatal attacks (593).2
    It is important to point out that fatal dog attacks committed by pit bulls and their mixes more than doubles the attacks inflicted by rottweilers. It is well documented by experts3 and humane groups4 that pit bulls pose a substantial danger due to their selective breeding for dogfighting. Unlike other dog breeds, pit bulls frequently fail to communicate intention prior to an attack (surprise attacks); possess a lethal bite style (hold and shake) and a ruinous manner of attack (gameness).

    One of the most dangerous scenarios involving high-risk dog breeds is often unaddressed in media stories after serious and fatal dog attacks. The scenario entails bringing a child into the home of a friend or relative who owns a pit bull or rottweiler. The reverse scenario -- one of these dog breeds temporarily staying at the child's home -- is just as dangerous. Three factors are at stake in these cases: 1.) High-risk dog breed 2.) "new" or "temporary" situations and 3.) children.
    DogsBite.org cannot underscore the volume of serious dog attacks, some of which are fatal, that occur when a child is visiting or temporarily living at the home of a pit bull or rottweiler owner (See: Ryan Maxwell, Jordyn Arndt and Dallas Walters). "

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/7775401/Excerpts-Dog-Bite-Prevention-for-Law-Enforcement-and-Other-First-Responders-by-Randall-Lockwood

    "Randall Lockwood, PhD., teaches a seminar to law enforcement officers about the unique characteristics of "fighting breed" dogs -- pit bulls. He says: "The best strategy for a fighting breed is to not communicate your intention. This is why we hear about so may fighting breeds attacking without warning. Meaning there was no growl, there was no bark, there was no direct stare...Likewise, they are disrespectful of the traditional signs of submission and appeasement.""
  • You can't really compare a pit bull (a domesticated animal) with a shark. Dogs were bred to be companion animals, and there is no evidence of pit bull type dogs mistaking children for dogs. I am not disagreeing that pit bull type dogs (there is no formal breed designation of pit bull, and many dog attacks are attributed to a pit bull type dog--and are often mixes, or unknown) are known for dog bites, and even dangerous dog bites.

    My point is just, prior to dog fighting taking off in the USA, pit bulls were seen as any other large, aggressive dog. I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with a pit any more than with a german shepherd or golden retriever. Many people own pits for the wrong reason, which is why they are the number 1 dog in abuse cases, number 1 in shelter population, number 1 in euthanasia, and number 1 in specific laws written to ban them. These people abuse, neglect, and mistreat these animals, and they are responsible for the vast majority of negative incidents. The bright side is that even with the Mike Vick dogs, many of them are recovering, despite the horrific conditions.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/michael-vick-dogs-vicktory_n_5119150.html
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    edited January 2015
    Okay, I did 30 minutes of light reading on the subject. The stats I believe you are citing come from a 20 year study of like 237 fatal dog attacks. Do you know how many pitbulls lived and died peacefully in that 20 year time frame? A hundred thousand? More? And studies of fatal dog attacks predispose that a dog is large enough to injure a human, so the stats are going to be heavily swung to larger breeds anyway.

    SUVs are far more deadly than a pit bull, and more likely to kill you and your family. I'm just one dude, and I have no dog in this fight so to speak (when I do get another dog, I'll be getting a mutt from a shelter or one through a rescue agency) but it seems that if you get a pitt or a rottweiler from a reputable breeder, you give it an average amount of love, attention, and training, you're taking far less risk that owning a gun, motorcycle, or even a sharp knife (1,589 fatal stabbings in 2012!) in the home. Meanwhile poodles and spaniels blind, maim, and disfigure children every year. It seems hard for me to support bans on specific breeds for these reasons.

    Stats have to be taken into context to have any sort of meaning.
  • WarpFoxWarpFox Nashville, TN
    A lot of people have misconceptions about breeds because of anecdotal evidence (read: unreliable bullshit) and anti-breed legislation. The media has a hand in this, too, as typically a headline will read "Pit Bull attack places toddler in critical condition" but if it's another breed, say Poodle or Labrador Retriever, the headlines typically read "Dog attack places toddler in critical condition." It's a sad situation where our culture applies blanket rules and reinforces stereotypes towards a breed of dog and the misconceptions live on. We used to treat humans this way, so it's no surprise that some people still feel this way about dogs as well.
  • @jpthet True enough for purposes of the nurture column, I'm comparing them in the sense of biological impacts on behavior. If their dispositions couldn't be groomed from conditioning then obviously we'd never have been able to domesticate them.

    Okay, I did 30 minutes of light reading on the subject. The stats I believe you are citing come from a 20 year study of like 237 fatal dog attacks. Do you know how many pitbulls lived and died peacefully in that 20 year time frame? A hundred thousand? More? And studies of fatal dog attacks predispose that a dog is large enough to injure a human, so the stats are going to be heavily swung to larger breeds anyway.



    SUVs are far more deadly than a pit bull, and more likely to kill you and your family. I'm just one dude, and I have no dog in this fight so to speak (when I do get another dog, I'll be getting a mutt from a shelter or one through a rescue agency) but it seems that if you get a pitt or a rottweiler from a reputable breeder, you give it an average amount of love, attention, and training, you're taking far less risk that owning a gun, motorcycle, or even a sharp knife (1,589 fatal stabbings in 2012!) in the home. Meanwhile poodles and spaniels blind, maim, and disfigure children every year. It seems hard for me to support bans on specific breeds for these reasons.



    Stats have to be taken into context to have any sort of meaning.

    Well now you're starting to take things way out of context. I was skirting it with my comparing to different animals, though just for the purpose mentioned above. I never tried to claim they're a huge menace to society and should be banned or anything, nor do I support the idea any sort of breed-based legislature.

    Just because there's an overall low threat of something doesn't make it any less foolish to write it off as not dangerous. Would you not wear a seat belt just because there's statistically a very low chance of you being in an accident the next time you drive? Would you not bother to have smoke detectors in your house just because there's a very small chance of your residence burning down? To not acknowledge that an attack dog breed is inherently more likely to, you know, attack, than a different breed that was not bred for that purpose is doing exactly that, and the ramifications are almost certainly going to affect others, not the owner.

    That's not to say that people shouldn't be allowed to own them, but rather that they need to understand it for what it is and behave accordingly, not deny the biology of the dog's breed and pretend that it's not any more inherently dangerous than a non-attack breed.

  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Yeah, but there are on average 12 fatal dog attacks per year with tens of millions of homes owning dogs. Over 3000 people die in car crashes every day. I just looked it up, in 2013, there were over 1000 house fires per day. That's why I think you'd be a fool to not wear a seatbelt or have a smoke detector but I can't get too excited about people owning pitbulls. The only difference I guess is that not owning a smoke detector or wearing a seatbelt merely risks you and your family's life, and owning a pitbull could potentially hurt someone outside your family, which is for sure a consideration. I guess it depends on your definition of what is statistically low, which is all I'm saying about statistics and their use. If you're not considering your overall likelihood of experiencing the harm, you're doing it wrong. You might be slightly more at risk of lightning strike wearing steel toed boots, but who cares?

    That's the way I look at it anyway. But I ride a motorcycle, which is honestly not statically defensible. ;)
  • WarpFoxWarpFox Nashville, TN
    I think however we are all in agreement that education is what is needed. People need to be educated out of extreme prejudices about certain breeds, and dog owners need to be educated about dogs in general, and if they do have a particular breed, that breed specifically. It comes down to the nature of the symbiotic relationship between dog and man, and learning to read a dog's body language is an important part of that education. Cesar Millan always educates his clients about this, and frequently draws attention to things like the position of the dog's ears, the position and movement of its tail, how it's standing, where it's standing, where it's looking, and the difference between submissiveness, excitement, anxiety, aggression and dominance. A lot of responsibility comes with owning a dog, and owners who fail to take that seriously and don't educate themselves about it are as much to blame for breed prejudice as media bias and anti-breed legislation.
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    edited January 2015
    I'm happy with my extreme prejudices, to be honest. I live in a country and state that bans certain breeds and I'm fine with that. The majority of people I've met who own the kind of dogs that one immediately thinks of as dangerous (pit bulls/bull terriers, dobermans, Rottweilers, German shepherds, crosses thereof and so on) have been irresponsible dicks. They are essentially walking around with a deadly weapon that could go off at any time without warning and they have no idea - or interest - in how to control it.

    I can be very reasonable and logical about most things (though I don't really consider my position here unreasonable or illogical but I know others will) but I will never be swayed on my opinion of dangerous dogs. No one ever thinks their dog is a danger to anyone until it is. And then it's too late.
  • Lobes? Never heard him called that before.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    edited January 2015

Sign In or Register to comment.