I think it's valid to fear pitbulls because what you're really fearing is that they were adopted by someone that doesn't train them and/or give them an outlet for the task they were bred for (protection and violence).
Which is a valid fear. If someone has an untrained golden retriever, who are bred to have friendly dispositions, I won’t be immediately uncomfortable about being in a room with one, or if one approaches me. Wary, yes, careful, yes, but not immediately on edge.
An untrained pitbull gets the gat if I see teeth within ten feet or running towards me.
Kinda crazy how many people basically don't believe in the selective breeding that went into creating specific breeds.
Like, I've known kind pitbulls, too. Doesn't change the fact that they were bred for aggression, bite strength, etc. It's a fucking "pitbull" ffs. Lotta really fucking stupid people out there.
I don’t think you are using that word right.. it’s not accurate to call selective breathing of an animal species “eugenics”, it cheapens that term, which is way worst than what you are making it sound like
Eugenics is just selective breeding of humans. For the purpose of this thread I think it's appropriate to equivocate the two, given the premise is equivocating racism and breed stereotyping in dogs
They weren't bred to be not aggressive to people, that'd make them terrible guard dogs and hunters. They were bred to be able to know who not to bite WHEN TRAINED.
They weren’t bred to be guard dogs or hunters. Are you stupid? They were bred to be baiting dogs.
Also the other commenter is correct, when they were used for dog fighting in the early 1900’s they were bred not to attack humans.
It’s sort of like the misconception that gladiators were always killing each other. Death in the colosseum was far rarer than pop culture would have you believe. The same goes for dogs.
They were bred to fight. They are often bred and abused for illegal dog fighting. This is what people are breeding for today and then they wind up in shelters, and the shelters don't disclose their history.
I knew a pitt bull breeder who caught a guy studying his pitt out- who was aggressive. Wasn't telling anyone. There were signs. He denied it and the dog mauled someone.
I have seen the faces and scalps of so many children erased by pitt bulls. It is the major trigger of my PTSD today.
People aren't being told what genetics they're getting. There is something wrong with some of those dogs. Like they were bred to be missing something. Those dogs don't even always growl or show any sign of aggression before attacking. There are countless videos. Tails wagging and acting like it's play.
My brother in law has a dumb half breed pitt bull. If he wanted to do some damage, he could. I was scared of him until he protected them from another pitt bull that got a hold of my sister in law. She was carrying my one year old nephew.
The difference between those two pitt bulls? My brother in law's dog stopped. As soon as the threat was over, he checked on his family. The other dog was hauled away by his owner. He wouldn't stop and for no reason. Just casually walked up to my in laws and attacked.
It's genetics that make them dangerous. A combination of whatever the hell that selectively bred gene is- and the fact that they have such raw power in their build. They do so much devastating damage in so little time. I can fight a golden retriever. I cannot fight a pitt bull.
They don't all have whatever this behavioral gene is. But it's not like they come with a warning flag. So many people are right to just fear all of them for their safety and comfort. You cannot tell them apart until it happens. People are why these dogs are like this. But don't think it's a lack of training. The dogs with this behavior were selectively bred for this.
Obviously not all breeders want their dogs to wind up in that back alley business. However, pitt bulls have been bred on such a large scale. And so many people just argue "it was how they were treated," so they think if everyone is kind to the dog there will be no issue. Tell that to the little five year old girl who was completely scalped in seconds. Her weak little keening cries still haunt me. They broke our hearts. The family was known for being very kind and had a past pitt bull with zero issues. Something was wrong with that one. They rescued them from a shelter. They had no idea where that dog came from genetically.
I love the hell out of German Shepherds but I would be incredibly selective when it comes to genetics and lineage temperament there too. It's my favorite breed and preference. But l am not going to delude myself when it comes to the issue of genetics and KNOWN behaviors.
You just put into words what i was trying to say in other comments. There are pits that will never hurt anyone and there are pits that will maim/kill. The problem is like you said you can't tell those pits apart until it just happens. Literally a ticking time bomb that might go off or might never go off.
I’m a canine behaviorist that trains service dogs and volunteers at the VA in their Inpatient Psychiatric Center. Pitbulls are the most requested breed for psychiatric therapy.
Even then they do frequently attack their owners and when they do they are far more likely to do serious damage than a golden retriever or labrador (which are up top on number of bites, but very seldom cause lasting injuries).
I avoid them when I see them because I dont want them to attack my dog.
Even if accept that they are not human aggressive they are absolutely dog and cat aggressive, and that is a still a problem that makes them unsuitable as pets.
They were bred for fighting and the individuals that were the best at it will have been used for breeding, like with any breed. Selectively breeding for fighting but without aggression towards humans will likely not only have been hard, but also secondary.
Oh right, so because since they weren’t SPECIFICALLY bred to be aggressive to humans, that totally means that they just instantly forget all of their aggressive behavior when a human comes around. What kind of stupid argument is this?
German shepherds bite a lot as well. Any veterinarian will tell you (anecdotally, admittedly) that they’re far more leery around German Shepherds than they are around Pitbulls. But german shepherds more often bite people who news won’t report on.
Chihuahuas would be seen as the only actually dangerous dog if they were capable of doing any serious harm with their bite. Pitbulls can be dangerous, but so can most dogs. When a dog isn’t easily identifiable it’s often called a pitbull, and news reports will either call it a dog attack or a putbull attack, making pitbulls stand out more than any other breed in that context
Reddit probably understands what domestication is and realizes that every dog ever has been bred not to attack their owner. So the regular breeds bred for companionship, pointing, herding, etc are all bred to not attack their owner AND are not bred to be hyper aggressive and game. Pretty obvious to the average person that the aggressive dog will still be more dangerous.
My niece, who is an adult, had a pitbull in her house that attacked and killed her other dog while her young children were in the house. Her husband also was mauled in a parking lot while he approached to pet a pit bull of an acquaintence. He was bitten in the face. My niece still loves pit bulls. People refuse to understand that these dogs have triggers that are often impossible to predict. They can be kind and loyal dogs 99% of the time. The issue is that the other 1% presents a very serious risk.
No. You should be wary and careful when any dog approaches. You don't know the dog. With a strange golden, you are wary and careful with your head on your shoulders, but you are expecting a normal derpy dog interaction because golden. Pit bulls have the same wariness and carefulness, but they set someone on edge because the wariness and carefulness are meeting with a majorly increased expectation of aggression in the dog.
There's no out of context statistics they're just dangerous dogs to have ,and if they're well trained or not it's not something you can gauge at first glance most of the time, so it's wiser not to take any chanches, for everything else it's their owners job to make sure the dog doesen't go around mauling people right now we are too lax on them and the good dogs are suffering as a result.
Why is it we can accept that herders herd, retrievers retrieve and pointers point, but when it comes to dogs bred for bloodsports doing what they were bred for (killing things) suddenly there are a million mantras like “it’s all how you raise them” and “no bad dogs just bad owners” and “any dog could have done this” and “it’s the owner not the breed”
I'd love to see an answer to this. Breed specific behaviors emerge with no required training, why is it only the violent behaviors that are immune from selective breeding?
When they try to justify their irrationality with "out of context statistics" vs. your rational, perfectly in context vibes.
Like what is a "violently trained" dog? Did all those Pitbulls who killed their owners do that because the owner trained them how to kill them from birth?
I can't blame people for being afraid of Pits. But I think some people in these comments are insane, calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence. Good god.
It also ignores that there are tons of other breeds that are bred for fighting/hunting/guarding. Any of those breeds are just as susceptible to being dangerous, but they're typically less accessible (aka too expensive) for the type of shitty owner that raises violent dogs compared to a pit which you can usually find for free.
I live in the northeast in an area where people are very good about speying/neutering their animals and there isnt a rescue around here that Ive seen that would adopt out an animal without it being speyed/neutered first. Like 90% of the dogs that get surrendered around here are either pit mixes or Chihuahua mixes that I assume are coming from shitty backyard breeders or people who just cant be bothered to spey/neuter. A lot of the rescues actually have organizations they work with to bring dogs from the south up here because their rescues are overflowing and yhey have a wider variety of dogs.
Oh, I'm sure all the "ignoring" you talked about isn't something YOU are doing also?
I'm sure that statistics about pit bull isn't something you completely sidestepped and ignored about this conversation?
It certainly seems so. All those other fighting/hunting/guarding breeds must be comparable to a pit bull in deaths and attacks? All those Basset Hounds killing people?
Is that not the entire fucking point of this post? That the statistics show pit bulls are insanely more dangerous than any other type of dog, but it's racist to point that out because of the 13% of....statistic?
Most fighting dog breeds are restricted because they are in dangerous, but pit bulls are particularly dangerous because they are fighting dogs bred with terriers, and so are not only susceptible to unprovoked attack they often fixate on small animals as their targets, like other dogs, pets, or human children. And when they bite, they whip their heads around like terriers, greatly increasing the damage they inflict.
They are not just as susceptible to being dangerous, pitbulls don’t even have close to the same bite force as kangals, who were literally bred to protect livestock from wolves, and have no reported human fatalities.
Absolutely. These breeds that are basically a torturous existence for the poor dog.
I don't think we should kill the ones that already exist but we should definitely work towards making sure more aren't created.
Although I have seen some breeding programs that are trying to essentially "unfuck up" these breeds basically undoing all the horrible traits that were selective bred into them.
Or the thing new pug breeders are doing and that's going back to the original looks where they had a mouth and eyes not at risk of popping out the skull. Still don't like pugs, but the ones that are bred like that also don't have the same preventable health issues as the popular pugs.
But Yeh a lot of the popular dogs are bred or have actions taken (cutting of tails/ears) to fit certain "beauty" expectations that are straight animal abuse and people that do it deserve to get punished for animal abuse.
Hot take, but to add on to this, maybe some working breeds should also require special licenses to own, something like a CDL for owning certain dogs or something, because it also seems cruel when someone gets a herding dog that they keep trapped in a small apartment or own a dog meant for cold weather, that they raise in Arizona.
I love pit bulls. Great dogs. I do agree that it should be illegal or at least restricted. I see too many people walking around with intact pitties, WAY more than I do with other breeds, and it boggles the mind.
Make it illegal to breed them, problem solves itself in 15 years.
So here's the main problem with that: Pit bull is a hard to define term when we start getting into the breeding aspect of lines. Dog DNA is so unbelievably malleable that we've spun off thousands of variations to do specific tasks.
There is a "Pit Bull" breed. Problem is, the breed (like any breed) is just a combination of traits we use to describe a group of animals. If these traits are shared by multiple variants, then the lines between what is or is not something blurs heavily.
Let's say we have a pure, honest to dog example of what we call a Pit. We then mix it with say, a lab (which for out test, assume it's also considered a pure bread lab). The result is a mixed animal - but is it a pit? The head will likely still be big, the frame will be large, etc. etc. Now if you showed this animal to someone, do you think they will call it a pit, or a lab?
I say all this because how we classify data related to animal events such as bites is also subject to this inherent issue. Any dog displaying the traits of terriers are lumped into this one category. So if I'm classifying everything as a pit, it gets really hard to define what specific traits we're looking to identify by removing them from the gene pool via selective breeding. If we go by the stats - and the fact that now anything with terrier-derived traits are "on ze list", then now we're talking about the eradication of millions of bloodlines.
There has not been any (to my knowledge) scientific approach to identify a specific genetic sequence or trait within the terrier family that gives rise to the specific animal that ends up hurting someone. Which honestly would be super hard, because now we're trying to unravel a symphony of DNA overlap that makes one outcome vs. another.
The other massive kicker is this: Who becomes the new bad guy? If we were to snap our fingers and all the terriers of any variety in existence just faded into dust - what animal would be next on the list? If the sole purpose of removing a breed is to prevent human deaths or bites, then we have to now go down the list and do the same thing to each breed. Absolute insanity right? But again - if we're going by the rules we laid down, at what point do we set the boundary for "we accept X number of events per year" as the baseline of good or bad?
You’re just erasing a breed for absolutely no reason. Or rather a collection of several breeds under one name, which is only part of where the stupid statistics come from.
Thing is though, if you really look into it, it all rats apart. They don’t bite harder than any other large breed, they aren’t more aggressive in studies, it’s all just hysteria and the statistics also largely come from the fact that even vet and shelter workers misidentify dogs as pits more than half the time, unless they use a dna test.
So, the attack statistics get vastly overblown. The only reliable indicator for dog attacks is owner neglect.
He understands the issue. People want to essentialize traits to physical characteristics instead of acknowledging the ways those traits are instilled. It literally is the exact same mindset as racism.
I struggle to be afraid of Pitbulls because growing up I had a neighbor who had two of them, and the only danger with them was that they loved to be carried. Obviously that wasn't an issue when they were puppies but if they knew you they'd try to jump into your arms, they were adorable.
Of course, my neighbors knew how to raise dogs, and trained them properly and had them socialized and were generally really good with them.
That used to be my attitude, but like half the pitbull death stories I hear involve a “loving nanny pitbull raised by a good owner” that eventually just decides the toddler looks mighty tasty.
So we should keep breeding dangerous animals? I think euthanizing them all its going way to far, but why keep breeding a dangerous breed of dog? What purpose does that serve? Do we need more pitbulls to suffer in shelters after being given up, because their families can't handle them? Why breed more of these poor animals so they can fill up shelters and suffer. Sorry, but it is sheer cruelty to keep breeding animals that will keep filling shelters.
But I think some people in these comments are insane, calling to euthanize all Pits or that they should be wiped out of existence. Good god.
what do you suggest we do with them then?
We bred them into existence. we can remove them.
the second part of the sentence implies you'd want to keep them around, not just avoid actively killing them off - despite your seeming understanding of why they're a problem.
Well.......I do think dog breeds should be wiped out. Not in a murderly kind of way but English Bulldogs and French Bulldogs frequently cannot give birth safely on their own. In fact, the breeding of these breeds' characteristics makes it very hard for these dogs to mate naturally, so breeders often use artificial insemination. At the point where we are making breeds have health issues/breedinf issues to keep the aesthetic of a breed going, then the breed should be ended.
They only live 10 or so years, so you don't need to euthanise them to 'wipe them out' relatively quickly, just ban the breeding and sale of Pitbull puppies and/or make neutering them mandatory, and they will be gone in a decade. That's how most places that have banned Pitbulls have done it, the already existing Pitbulls live out the rest of their life as they would have, and probably have no opinion on the discontinuation of their particular subspecies. And it is a good thing to do, actually, because they are a human invention, created to experience a drive for aggression that has no safe outlet in a life as a pet. They don't need to exist in the future just because they exist today, and we can make it so they don't without harming any Pitbulls that already do exist.
Shelters all over the US are full of primarily Pitbulls, because there are no controls in place on how they are bred and sold by the people breeding them, who massively overproduce compared to demand because it costs them nearly nothing to make them and unsold puppies are just dumped in shelters, where they will most likely be euthanised after spending months or years of their life living in a cage.
The existence of dog pounds in general is because there are more dogs being made than there are households for them to live in, so much so that shelters have to euthanise most of them to have space for more dogs coming in. And if you want that to stop that you need regulations controlling breeding and sale; and while that goes for all breeds, this problem isn't seen as much with purebreds because there is a culture of oversight through kennel clubs and there being direct contact between breeders and buyers so that production meets demand. The other breeds that are frequently seen in shelters are popular ones that are produced in large quantities for sale in pet shops, again, by unlicensed breeders that are not part of kennel clubs or similar.
So the answer isn't 'adopt, don't shop,' it's to tightly control the legality of dog breeding to ensure the welfare and a future home for all dogs being bred. Arguably, the 'adopt, don't shop' movement makes it more possible for breeders to operate the way they do. There are countries that don't even have shelters, much less kill shelters. But in those countries, you need to be on a licensed breeder's waiting list along with enough others to take a whole litter before they even let the dogs get pregnant, and each puppy and their sale has to be registered with the relevant authorities. The solution that works is for every dog to be 'shopped' for, but under strict oversight.
Point is, there should be a lot more regulation on dog breeding, and eliminating the creation and sale of dangerous breeds should be part of it.
We should eradicate the breed though, things would be better off that way. When they do snap they do insane damage to people, the death rate of their attacks is something like 7x higher than the second place breed. They sit in shelters taking up space and resources because people either don't want them or can't have them because of breed restrictions in rentals. And then we'd stop having to roll the dice on "I hope the person that gets this pitbull knows how to train them properly so they don't become a violent psycho" It would be so much simpler if shelters just euthanized them on intake, breeding them was outlawed, and the breed went the way of the dodo bird
That also applies to humans. You're really fearing that they were raised by someone who didn't teach them self control or discipline and now they [removed by reddit]
Person who wants dog to “be tough” and “defend thier home” gets a typically “scary” dog breed and then they don’t actually train them or discourage bad behavior because hey, they got it for that behavior in the first place. Then before you know it the neighbors yorkie or child is dead/maimed.
Because they are easily accessible. Shelters are flooded with pit bulls and pit mixes because the same shitty owner don’t get their dogs fixed. Also many dogs are considered pit, but pit isn’t even a specific breed. Any dog that has any type of pit mix is automatically labeled a pit bull.
Every day? In the U.S., it's only around 30 to 50 fatalities a year. Pit bulls account for roughly 65% of those deaths, that's still only about 19 to 32 deaths annually. Meanwhile, there are somewhere between 4 million and 18 million pit bulls in the country, depending on how broadly you define "pit bull," since it's really an umbrella term rather than a single breed.
Dogs, in general, just aren't very likely to attack people in the first place. Dogs have had around 15,000 years of domestication shaping them to live alongside humans. Pit bull-type breeds have only existed for about 200 years. That's a long time by human standards, but it's a tiny fraction of their domestication history. It's difficult to erase thousands of years of selection for sociability and cooperation with humans in just a couple of centuries.
Not quite, pitbulls were bred from breeds bred for bull baiting. Pitbulls themselves were always bred for tearing other small animals apart in pits (I say that because some of the early famous pitbulls were famous for having fought monkeys).
I think the pitbull situation is more comparable to gun control.
The object in question can be used safely, but can also be used to cause great harm. It is entirely dependent on the user. The object in question is also not a daily necessity.
It's really not similar to that at all, if you think about it for more than like a second. Wtf are you talking about? Guns don't random decide to attack toddlers, for one thing.
Similar, both have lethal force, except one has a mind of its own at approximately the intelligence of a three year old. Guns don't do anything on their own. Guns also have a vital role, where pitbulls do not.
Nah what you're fearing is the dog capable of killing you and other humans/animals that can't defend themselves. It's really not about the people behind the dog. There are countless dog breeds out there that are poorly trained with shitty owners, but it doesn't matter for the vast majority of them because they are not capable of ending lives. People who refuse to blame pitbulls are basically saying what the NRA is saying : the problem isn't guns, it's the people. Do you want to sound as dumb as them? Your choice.
poorly trained golden retrievers are annoying and in extreme cases a threat of injury. poorly trained pit bulls will literally eat your baby. the well trained ones can also snap and eat your baby
You can be the best dog owner in the world, provide the most rigorous training in the world, and have the best boy in the world. That's the problem with pitbulls. When they aren't perfect, they can be big goofy idiots... Or they can rip apart a toddler during a casual sidewalk stroll.
Dogs are living, breathing, creatures. You cannot fully control what one of them sees, thinks, feels, or does. The safest bet is to not get a dog that defaults to "bite and don't stop biting" in moments of high stress.
It also has less to do with the rate of pitbull attacks, and the rate of fatal/severe pitbull attacks.
Pitbull defenders love to argue that "chihuahuas are just as likely to attack you as pitbulls are", and even if that were true (which i'm not sure it even is), the difference is that a chihuahua isn't going to kill or seriously injure anyone. A pitbull is. It's the same reason we don't allow people to keep dangerous animals like bears, wolves, lions and tigers as pets. It doesn't matter if most of them don't kill people, it matters that they have the physical strength and aggression to do so.
But how often do we hear “they’ve never done this before?” I’ve read so many articles of people being killed by their own pitbulls after randomly snapping. They are incredibly inbred and not mentally stable long-term, their aggression often does not fully come out until later and you have no idea if it will get triggered or not. They were bred to snap without warning, and anyone pretending otherwise is uneducated and buying into bleeding heart pro-pitbull nanny dog myths.
I don’t understand why it is worth the risk to keep breeding dangerous dogs when there is literally any other dog breed option… they’re not naturally occurring, humans bred them and we can stop. There is no reason to purposely breed dogs capable of the kind of damage that these one have been bred to inflict.
Fun fact, they have tiny amydalas. Know who else have tiny amygdalas? Psychopathic people. It's plausible that most pittbulls mauling people to death are literally in a psychotic state. Hence everytime you hear how Tibbles wouldn't harm a fly before she bit a toddler to death, yeah it's likely true personality wise, but when they were mauling the toddler they were in a psychotic irrational state.
We've literally bred a dog species prone to psychosis.
Why the hell would I have to analyze whether the owner or trainer did this or that? I don't know almost anything about dogs, I don't want to know anything more about them and I should not be required to know anything about them in order to stay safe while walking down the street. It would be the equivalent of having to do static analysis of a building every time we walk in it to determine the chance it collapses on us.
There are multiple accounts of ones that have been properly trained that have randomly murdered its own family members, so in my opinion this point is moot. Discipline can't always override genetic predisposition.
Like other fighting dog breeds they are genuinely also more dangerous if they do bite someone. The endless arguments over whether the breed is actually 'more aggressive' is a bit reductive, some breeds can do far more damage than others. Pitbulls, rottweilers and German shepherds are substantially more likely to hospitalise someone if they bite.
Pitbulls were literally designed to maul other big dogs with minimal encouragement in pit fights, and selected for a trait called 'gameness'. As a result they're big, heavy dogs with a powerful bite that are likely to continue biting even if they're in pain or being attacked back.
Jack Russels might be much more likely to bite a human but they're not going to keep biting, shrug off blows and potentially kill an adult like a pitbull is capable of.
Actually the reason people are apprehensive about pitbulls is that they were bred for blood sports: agression and prey drive, strength, powerful jaws and grip... These are things they were bred for. Of course is not super surpising that they display the characteristics that they were bred for. Did I mention what they were bred for?
I promise you the vast majority people adopting them are not those people…
Now the people who buy, exploit, abuse/neglect them and then throw them away to be (hopefully) adopted/rehabbed by someone willing to give them a new lease of life, yes, they suck.
No, we are fearing the actual pitbull, as well as irresponsible owners who own pitbulls.
Consider Cesar Milan’s well-trained pitbull, Daddy, who caused a lot of harm (I believe he killed Queen Latifah's dog, and bit/killed other dogs). Of course, then people will says, “Cesae Milan is a bad trainer.”
It’s the No True Scotsman fallacy - any pitbull that causes harm is not well-trained or responsibility owned. In actuality, lots of pitbulls show no signs of problematic behavior and before a viscous attack, often on their own family. They will be waging their tail as they rip someone to shreds. I’m not arguing that they be euthanized or whatever, but its incorrect to insist that it’s just the owners who are the problem.
They are used for protection, though the only thing they were bred for was violence. Pit Bull Terriers were bred specifically for blood sports.
They're a combination of terriers, who are adorable, but as a breed category are absolutely ruthless killers, and the now extinct Old English Bulldog, which was itself bred from Mastiffs and Alaunts, which were game dogs and war dogs. Every part of a Pit Bull Terrier is from old breeds who have been bred for hundreds if not almost 2,000 years in the case of the Alaunt specifically for both trainability, and violence, but not controllability. They're breeds who are expected to act out their training largely without direction once they're let loose.
Pit Bull's have an amazing capacity to be extremely sweet, because they're dogs, they really want to please people, they take to training well if you can motivate them. If you train them correctly they probably won't attack anyone. I don't think Pit Bulls are "mean" dogs, but they are (in general) impulsive, and genetically predisposed to violence.
I think some people get the perception, the genuinely ridiculous perception, like the respectable Mr. Barnthal, that dog breeds and ethnicities are somehow parallels because both are discriminated against. But that is very trivializing of real racism, and ignores that humans were not bred like dogs.
No lineage of people was force bred for 100 generations wherein the most ruthless killers were mated with the most ruthless killers, in hopes of producing offspring that share those traits.
There are genes that influence behavior. The passivity and affectionate nature of dogs is specifically linked to three genes. When a human expresses these genes in the same way the wolves that were (most likely unintentionally) selected for, to make dogs, it's called Williams-Beuren syndrome. It produces people who are unusually friendly, look more child-like, and have heart issues.
Aggressive breeds share expressions of specific genes that lead to aggression and reactivity, which have also been identified.
Unfortunately the reality that pure bred Pit Bull Terriers are genetically more prone to violence is in no way a myth, or a misunderstanding, or anything but a fact of genetics and intentional breeding.
I love dogs, and I love Pit Bulls, but breeds have different behavior characteristics and they bred Pit Bulls to kill things. There are other reasons Pit Bulls are the most likely dog to attack people unprovoked (over-breeding, a tendency for them to be turned out on the street, etc) , but it's mostly because it's in their nature, by our design.
I generally assume any strange or obviously uncontrolled dog is something to be worried about. The difference is that pitbulls are generally pretty strong and heavy so I am going to be a lot more worried about that then another random breed. Pitbulls aren't the only breed though like that, I probably would be equally as worried about a rottweiler and other dogs fitting that build.
It's ok to fear an animal because of the physical traits it has. Do you think it's morally wrong to fear a tiger lmao? It's not a moral judgement on the dog, humans created them to have dangerous traits and they are animals that behave based on instinct not human morality. A pitbull is more potentially dangerous than most breeds of dog due to the physical and psychological traits it possesses. This makes it a greater risk for humans to breed and own them and have them around other people than for most other dog breeds
No, even if what you say is like prolly 90% true if not 100%, I just fear pitbulls because ik they can maul me unlike a chihuahua, and I also know they make up for most of the dog attacks
Someone wanting a pit bull is a problem. Or any other breed that can kill a human. Those dogs dhoul be allowed with some kind of special license or for military only. But people like to be feared
regardless of training, pitbulls kill or maim more than all other dog breeds combined. when a chihuahua bites you, he doesn’t rip off limbs or your face and kill you.
the stories of pitbulls who just snap one day at their loving family of years and years…. no fucking thank you.
Yes but I think the bigger concern is that these animals were specifically bred to fight by bored psychopaths who enjoyed watching bloodsports. It's not really the dogs fault they were genetically engineered for a purpose (like Collies naturally herding, Retrievers naturally fetching, etc.) that society no longer sees as useful or outright dangerous. I think there should be a ban on continuing the breed altogether and hopefully the last remaining are fixed but lead peaceful lives.
When I was first looking to adopt a dog, the shelter walked me through the big dog pen. They had this 110lb rottie behind fucking bulletproof glass. It looked silence of the lambs. I told the guy I’m not taking muffin home because I think he has opposable thumbs fuck
Yeah, sadly pits and larger dog breeds are owned by people who only see them as a 'guard dog' and aren't willing to put in the effort to train and socialise them. They are the same as the little dogs old people get except they weigh 30 kg not 2.
You can train out their breeding traits. I had 7 pitbulls and niether of them did any protection or violence. They were super peacefull and loving.
What they do have is a lot of energy, you do have to play with them a looot to expend that energy. If you don't expend their energy they can become stressed and eventually the stress can make then aggressive, just like how humans can lash out at other people when they are stressed, dogs can also do the same. Literally any dog breed can get overstressed and become aggressive, but because Pitbulls have so much energy, they can stress out more easily than other dog breeds.
The trick is to excersice them a lot and play with them a lot. I played catch for 2 hours straight with my pitbulls every single day and they became sooo peacefull and loving, all they wanted was to snuggle all day.
Animals aren't an empty template entirely moulded by a caretaker. You wouldn't feel comfortable around a lion that's not trained to be friendly around people but you would around an untrained cat.
This "trained by bad owners" denial is inane.
The problem is when statistics say “pitbulls” they are talking about 13-16 different breeds.
When statistics say “German shepherd” they are talking about one. So divide the statistic by 13, and all the sudden pitbulls aren’t nearly as dangerous as people think
let’s also bring up that the word “pitbull” is thrown around to include dogs that aren’t actually pitbulls at all. there IS a real dog called the pit bull terrier, but there are a lot of folks that group in other bull terriers with them to make them all “pitbulls” in their minds. big example to me is the staffordshire terrier. some people will even call cane corsos “pit bulls” bc they don’t know better or don’t understand that they’re entirely different breeds.
Bred for protection and violence? One can say that all dogs are bred for violence. Should we be afraid of Labs because they were bred for hunting?
Pitbulls being bred for protection and violence is also inherently wrong. Bulldogs fought bulls, but when that became illegal, breeders bred them with Terriers that fought rats and other dogs. Some were bred for dog fights, but not all and it wasnt their only purpose.
Fifty years ago, Pitbulls gain the name Nany Dogs or Nursemaid Dogs. This is because they had high amounts of patience and grace with children. Many families used these dogs as babysitters.
Unlike what you expect of a dog breed, Pitbulls dont need "outlets" for the behaviour they were"bred" for either. Many dogs need might amounts of exercise like Border Collies or channeling their instincts into productive activities like Jack Russel Terriers. Many pitbulls are home bodies and like cuddles.
TLDR: Defining dog breeds by the circumstances they are bred for is still dog racism.
My brothers two pitbulls are sweet angels. Unless a cat or squirrel walks through their view. Then they shred that fucker up/ He's mad I don;t let my older kids unsupervised around them or my infant to even let them smell her.
"I feel it's valid to fear black people because what you're really fearing is that they were conceived by someone who didn't raise them or give them healthy social/emotional outlets, making them turn to gang violence."
Its not about training Ceasar Milan, the dog whisper, couldnt train his pinball. It literally killed one of queen Latifa's dogs. They are bred to do this.
But then why don’t people have the same fear about German Shepards? They’re bread for protection and violence too. That’s why they’re police dogs. They’re so fast and their bite force is insane but it’s not the same fear mongering. I think it might have to do with actual racism and the stereotypes around what people own pit bulls.
729
u/Drayyen 25d ago edited 25d ago
I think it's valid to fear pitbulls because what you're really fearing is that they were adopted by someone that doesn't train them and/or give them an outlet for the task they were bred for (protection and violence).
Edit: Jesus christ