Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry you feel I browbeat you because I disagreed. That wasn't my intention when I responded to your article. I read the article from your first post & chose not to respond because I felt it was irrelevant to the point you were making (it didnt' support it). The second time you posted, I responded respectfully because I felt a second post with the same link meant you wanted a response from people who read it. Responding with my thoughts is not brow-beating, no more than I think this response from you is brow-beating me. But your original response to me 'typical pit owner response, denial' & not discussing anything about what I had actually said, was uncalled for & disrespectful.
The following is for anyone who wants to read it, it's not directed AT you.
This idea that 'hard-wiring' exists in a modern day dog breed & not only exists but can't be changed is not science based. To break it down in simple terms: If hard-wiring was valid & un-changable in canines, none of the breeds we currently keep as pets would be suitable family pets because all dogs are derived from a common ancestors that spent 100's of years being molded by nature to survive based off instinct. The second a member of the pack became aged, sick or weak, it was killed or cast off so as not to endanger the pack. If dogs were hard-wired to only act out in the way their ancestral genes told them to, then we would never have gotten past the initial 'wildness' & would've been uncapable of domesticating them.
Dog breeds are all relatively new when compared with the evolution of other species on the planet. There are some that believe 'pits' are older than a lot of other breeds we currently know. There are some that believe 'pits' are newer than a lot of other breeds we currently know. But their ancestry (back to the point we can pinpoint & say that ancestor was a definate bull breed) is not old enough to support a hard-wiring argument (regardless of a tv show). One of the amazing things about domesticated dogs is how QUICKLY we were able to modify them to suit the purpose we wanted for each breed. That still holds true. Nature is quick to adapt & if you can successfully selectively breed a dog to be aggressive in under 5 generations, then you can easily selectively breed that dog to not be aggressive. It speaks to the adaptablity of canine genes.
Labs or Australian Cattle Dogs, Mastiffs, Chows, etc. Blanket statements aren't fair in this situation. I'd say this story speaks perfectly to other breeds being more than capable of shaking a small child to death, as I posted previously: Dog killed ripped 2-month-old baby's legs off while father slept in other room: police - New York Daily News The point is MANY dogs are capable of it and have done it. MANY breeds are not suitable for every home. It's time for people to be responsible. You are completely right that there are some people that shouldn't own a pit. I said that in a previous post, along with a slew of other breeds.
I will agree with you on most points, but still believe hard wiring has a lot to do with bad behavior, after all, man still succumbs to the ''fight or flight'' instinct and that comes from our cave man days, it is ingrained in us, the same as hard wiring in dogs. Domestication of dogs has mostly covered it up, but it still rears it's ugly head from time to time.
You know, if you read my posts as you said you did, you would see I am not a pit bull hater, but instead, you chose to brow beat me about my knowledge of dogs. I never professed to be a ''dog expert'' but have done a fair amount of reading and watched many programs on the subject. I changed my position after I did some reading and watched a show regarding how dogs are hard wired and how it effects their behavior. For example, most Terriers were bred/hard wired to hunt down and kill small animals and were more effective than cats of ridding the family farm of vermin. This is part of their hard wiring and cannot be removed with all the training in the world and it does/will surface from time to time. That my friend is where the problem lies. Some times they will mistakenly recognize small children as a small animal and attack. Armed with this info, I would think one would have the good sense to choose a more docile breed as a family pet. If a young couple or a single man wants to have a pit for a pet, fine. I would not recommend them around kids or for a young woman. I recently saw a young woman with a pit or a pit like dog on a leash, either way I could see it was a powerful dog. She could barely control it. Why in gods name would any one want a dog they can barely control and known to be difficult to train. Pits and rotties are the only dogs I know, that have the strength to grab and shake a small child to death, not my choice as a family pet. Do you want to take that chance, when there are so many other better choices? Again, I am not for banning pits, just hoping people will use some common sense in chosing a pet, so far they have proven me wrong.
The last part of your posting is so true. My son has a pit/x and that guy is a powerhouse. My son has control of him because he's big and strong and the dog respects him. He only mines me because I know enough not to allow him to be where I can't control him. My place is his second home where he has to mined and get along with other dogs. As long as your not another dog for the most part your safe when he's lose, he's very protective of what he thinks is his. He enjoys he's leash, we think he's finally figured it's his safe place.
I think pit mixes are probably the better choice, due to their Alpha breed. The breeding has gotten so out of control that people are taking these as pups and by the time the dog is 3 with no training, their out of control. Then we see "pitbulls must be stopped at all cost", when in reality it's stupid people who should be stopped at all cost of breeding the "Cute Puppy"
The following is for anyone who wants to read it, it's not directed AT you.
This idea that 'hard-wiring' exists in a modern day dog breed & not only exists but can't be changed is not science based. To break it down in simple terms: If hard-wiring was valid & un-changable in canines, none of the breeds we currently keep as pets would be suitable family pets because all dogs are derived from a common ancestors that spent 100's of years being molded by nature to survive based off instinct. The second a member of the pack became aged, sick or weak, it was killed or cast off so as not to endanger the pack. If dogs were hard-wired to only act out in the way their ancestral genes told them to, then we would never have gotten past the initial 'wildness' & would've been uncapable of domesticating them.
Dog breeds are all relatively new when compared with the evolution of other species on the planet. There are some that believe 'pits' are older than a lot of other breeds we currently know. There are some that believe 'pits' are newer than a lot of other breeds we currently know. But their ancestry (back to the point we can pinpoint & say that ancestor was a definate bull breed) is not old enough to support a hard-wiring argument (regardless of a tv show). One of the amazing things about domesticated dogs is how QUICKLY we were able to modify them to suit the purpose we wanted for each breed. That still holds true. Nature is quick to adapt & if you can successfully selectively breed a dog to be aggressive in under 5 generations, then you can easily selectively breed that dog to not be aggressive. It speaks to the adaptablity of canine genes.
Labs or Australian Cattle Dogs, Mastiffs, Chows, etc. Blanket statements aren't fair in this situation. I'd say this story speaks perfectly to other breeds being more than capable of shaking a small child to death, as I posted previously: Dog killed ripped 2-month-old baby's legs off while father slept in other room: police - New York Daily News The point is MANY dogs are capable of it and have done it. MANY breeds are not suitable for every home. It's time for people to be responsible. You are completely right that there are some people that shouldn't own a pit. I said that in a previous post, along with a slew of other breeds.
Actually, I believe more than science based it's only common sense some dogs are easier to train than others, some more hard-wired than others. Some dog's we believe would be the easiest to train let's say a German Shepherd they're a prey dog and that is not easy to breed out of them, they have to be disciplined pretty well to not chase a deer. Now a lab you could probably teach it much easier to not chase deer due to the lab being a breed not as independent as the shepherd is.
It's really all about the breed and how they've lived, their traits and breeding history. The shepherd is much closer to the wolf and if you watch a shepherd in the wild they hunt rabbits, mice and rodents, even a AKC Shepherd instincts will kick into being a carnavoire and hunt like any other.........
Actually, I believe more than science based it's only common sense some dogs are easier to train than others, some more hard-wired than others. Some dog's we believe would be the easiest to train let's say a German Shepherd they're a prey dog and that is not easy to breed out of them, they have to be disciplined pretty well to not chase a deer. Now a lab you could probably teach it much easier to not chase deer due to the lab being a breed not as independent as the shepherd is.
It's really all about the breed and how they've lived, their traits and breeding history. The shepherd is much closer to the wolf and if you watch a shepherd in the wild they hunt rabbits, mice and rodents, even a AKC Shepherd instincts will kick into being a carnavoire and hunt like any other.........
Yes, but we were speaking more in relation to hard-wiring being something that is not able to be changed (not hard-wiring posing some training challenges). There are definitely traits that are more difficult to train out of or even not encourage in certain breeds. Really any breed has traits that are long standing behavioral traits in the breed that take work if you want to suppress or remove that trait. That's why it's vitality important to be responsible and only choose a dog that fits with your lifestyle and comfort level in regards to training.
But dogs shouldn't be consider hard-wired in the sense that they can't ever be trained out of those traits, or that it takes a superhuman feat to train them out of those traits or in terms of a whole breed, those traits couldn't be selectively breed out fairly quickly. When people say the whole breed should be destroyed or only allowed to live in secluded areas with specially trained & licensed people because they are hard-wired to kill and there's no amount of work that will take it out of them, they are incorrect & spreading some pretty large exaggerations. (killing is not a trait. behavior & physiology that make learning to kill or being efficient at killing are traits.)
I don't believe that killing/attacking people is one of those difficult traits in any bull breed though, regardless. I believe being strong willed & independant IS one of those traits in all bull breeds, but how that is expressed depends on enviroment & training.
I also believe any trait can be selectively bred out of a breed fairly quickly. AKC standard breeds (or any recognized standard) are bred specifically to met a certain standard with a limited amount of wiggle room. Many of the genes for physical appearance traits that go along with breed standards are also tied to certain behaviorial trait genes, so it does make sense that certain breeds have traits that should rule that breed out for certain owners because of the difficulty in suppressing those traits, but I don't think its impossible or very difficult to do for people with the knowledge to do so as long as they aren't trying to limit themselves to staying within certain appearance guidelines (again, I don't think killing people is one of those traits for any breed commonly kept as pets). If you wanted to change a breed so that those urges aren't strong, it would be very doable, but the resulting dogs would probably not fit into the AKC appearance standards. However, if the world changed tomorrow and we decided to start breeding dogs for their specific functions only, with no regard to appearance, I have no doubt that within several generations we would start to see major changes in all the breeds. And the breeds bred for different functions would begin to have vast differences in behavior & appearance from each other.
Last edited by AMidnightSoul; 07-14-2012 at 01:58 PM..
Yes, but we were speaking more in relation to hard-wiring being something that is not able to be changed (not hard-wiring posing some training challenges). There are definitely traits that are more difficult to train out of or even not encourage in certain breeds. Really any breed has traits that are long standing behavioral traits in the breed that take work if you want to suppress or remove that trait. That's why it's vitality important to be responsible and only choose a dog that fits with your lifestyle and comfort level in regards to training.
But dogs shouldn't be consider hard-wired in the sense that they can't ever be trained out of those traits, or that it takes a superhuman feat to train them out of those traits or in terms of a whole breed, those traits couldn't be selectively breed out fairly quickly. When people say the whole breed should be destroyed or only allowed to live in secluded areas with specially trained & licensed people because they are hard-wired to kill and there's no amount of work that will take it out of them, they are incorrect & spreading some pretty large exaggerations. (killing is not a trait. behavior & physiology that make learning to kill or being efficient at killing are traits.)
I don't believe that killing/attacking people is one of those difficult traits in any bull breed though, regardless. I believe being strong willed & independant IS one of those traits in all bull breeds, but how that is expressed depends on enviroment & training.
I also believe any trait can be selectively bred out of a breed fairly quickly. AKC standard breeds (or any recognized standard) are bred specifically to met a certain standard with a limited amount of wiggle room. Many of the genes for physical appearance traits that go along with breed standards are also tied to certain behaviorial trait genes, so it does make sense that certain breeds have traits that should rule that breed out for certain owners because of the difficulty in suppressing those traits, but I don't think its impossible or very difficult to do for people with the knowledge to do so as long as they aren't trying to limit themselves to staying within certain appearance guidelines (again, I don't think killing people is one of those traits for any breed commonly kept as pets). If you wanted to change a breed so that those urges aren't strong, it would be very doable, but the resulting dogs would probably not fit into the AKC appearance standards. However, if the world changed tomorrow and we decided to start breeding dogs for their specific functions only, with no regard to appearance, I have no doubt that within several generations we would start to see major changes in all the breeds. And the breeds bred for different functions would begin to have vast differences in behavior & appearance from each other.
You may be right about the appearance genes being tied to the trait genes, sound logical. Maybe this is why mutts seem to make great pets.
1-year-old fatally mauled by family's pit bull | khou.com Houston
just as there are incidents with other dog breeds hurting people as well. so, using the logic that you claim helps you understand that not all pit bulls attack, how would it be justified to target all of them that are not attacking for bans, extermination, unreasonable insurance policies, etc? especially considering that it is only one in hundreds of thousands that is going to hurt someone, and one in millions that is going to kill someone (on par with the rates seen in other large dog breeds)?
Quote:
These dogs have a penchant for doing weird stuff. I think that the combo of inbreeding and their innate charcterisitics are not worth the effort to keep the breed going.
all dogs have a penchant for doing "weird" things, especially when they are not controlled by a responsible pet owner.
further, inbreeding has nothing to do with what americans are scared of about pit bulls. the "pit bulls" that america is scared of are more mastiff and bull dog than terrier, which by definition means that it is a crossbred animal, which again by definition is not inbred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
Really, this is typical of pit owners, denial! Read into the history of dogs and hard wired, you will be amazed.
your bias is showing. a number of us are pit owners, and a number of us are not. but what most of us have in common is that we cannot look at the numbers and facts and agree that legislating breed bans and restrictions does anything to fix the problem. in fact, it is the opposite. if there is a problem with canine violence, the actual cause of the problem has to be addressed, or it will stay the same or get worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
For example, most Terriers were bred/hard wired to hunt down and kill small animals and were more effective than cats of ridding the family farm of vermin. This is part of their hard wiring and cannot be removed with all the training in the world and it does/will surface from time to time.
no one is talking about removing instinct. what we are talking about is training a domesticated animal and properly controlling it. and yes, that is very possible even with dogs such as terriers, collies, sheep dogs, and other high-maintenance breeds.
Quote:
That my friend is where the problem lies. Some times they will mistakenly recognize small children as a small animal and attack.
by "sometimes," i think you realistically mean "hardly ever." it isn't very easy for a dog to confuse a child with a small animal. it does happen, but not very often, and there are almost always very telling circumstances (such as the dog being blind and in a stressful environment, not being properly led by a responsible owner that gets to choose who is prey and who isn't, etc).
Quote:
Armed with this info, I would think one would have the good sense to choose a more docile breed as a family pet.
"good sense?" what you are saying is, "armed with this info, i would think one would have the good sense to do what i want them to." good sense is entirely subjective, and in your case, does not follow objectivity or logic.
Quote:
If a young couple or a single man wants to have a pit for a pet, fine. I would not recommend them around kids or for a young woman. I recently saw a young woman with a pit or a pit like dog on a leash, either way I could see it was a powerful dog. She could barely control it. Why in gods name would any one want a dog they can barely control and known to be difficult to train.
i agree with the premise here, but not the execution. if a small, weaker person, or a family with children wants to have a pet, i would caution them away from any medium or large dog. experienced owners have some leeway in my book, so long as they can control the animal. but if they are too small and fragile to properly restrain it, then i would recommend otherwise.
but this does not apply to pit bulls only. it applies to labs, akitas, shepherds, and any other dog that is large and strong enough to thoroughly dominate a child or small adult.
Quote:
Pits and rotties are the only dogs I know, that have the strength to grab and shake a small child to death,
and yet you expect us to believe that you've adequately done your homework? i am not trying to be rude here, but this is ridiculously low-level stuff. within 15 minutes on wikipedia you should be better equipped to handle this conversation.
this is apparently news to you, but the pit bull breeds average somewhere around 30-60 lbs. they don't get as large and strong as you are talking about until they are crossbred with other dog breeds. some of those other breeds are strong enough to shake a large child or a small adult to death. purebred pits are typically not, unless we are talking about infants and other, very small children.
Quote:
not my choice as a family pet. Do you want to take that chance, when there are so many other better choices? Again, I am not for banning pits, just hoping people will use some common sense in chosing a pet, so far they have proven me wrong.
again you confuse your value system with a common value system, "common sense." you confuse your values with logic and fact. using phrases like "common sense" and "better choices" the way you are shows that you are not talking objectively and basing your choices off of research and logic, but off of emotional response and personal bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
I will agree with you on most points, but still believe hard wiring has a lot to do with bad behavior, after all, man still succumbs to the ''fight or flight'' instinct and that comes from our cave man days, it is ingrained in us, the same as hard wiring in dogs. Domestication of dogs has mostly covered it up, but it still rears it's ugly head from time to time.
just as with humans, dog aggression has a time and a place. you are trying to tell us that because a man has "caveman instincts," he is uncontrollable. certain men, yes, are uncontrollable. those are called criminals, sociopaths, and those with severe emotional and mental problems. the rest of us are very capable of restraining our caveman urges and only unleashing them at appropriate times.
a properly trained and adequately guided dog will understand when and where to unleash its urges as well. a dog without proper training and guidance from a responsible pack alpha will follow its urges whenever it feels like it, especially when feeling threatened or stressed. that is what causes problems with canine-human violence.
just as there are incidents with other dog breeds hurting people as well. so, using the logic that you claim helps you understand that not all pit bulls attack, how would it be justified to target all of them that are not attacking for bans, extermination, unreasonable insurance policies, etc? especially considering that it is only one in hundreds of thousands that is going to hurt someone, and one in millions that is going to kill someone (on par with the rates seen in other large dog breeds)?
all dogs have a penchant for doing "weird" things, especially when they are not controlled by a responsible pet owner.
further, inbreeding has nothing to do with what americans are scared of about pit bulls. the "pit bulls" that america is scared of are more mastiff and bull dog than terrier, which by definition means that it is a crossbred animal, which again by definition is not inbred.
your bias is showing. a number of us are pit owners, and a number of us are not. but what most of us have in common is that we cannot look at the numbers and facts and agree that legislating breed bans and restrictions does anything to fix the problem. in fact, it is the opposite. if there is a problem with canine violence, the actual cause of the problem has to be addressed, or it will stay the same or get worse.
no one is talking about removing instinct. what we are talking about is training a domesticated animal and properly controlling it. and yes, that is very possible even with dogs such as terriers, collies, sheep dogs, and other high-maintenance breeds.
by "sometimes," i think you realistically mean "hardly ever." it isn't very easy for a dog to confuse a child with a small animal. it does happen, but not very often, and there are almost always very telling circumstances (such as the dog being blind and in a stressful environment, not being properly led by a responsible owner that gets to choose who is prey and who isn't, etc).
"good sense?" what you are saying is, "armed with this info, i would think one would have the good sense to do what i want them to." good sense is entirely subjective, and in your case, does not follow objectivity or logic.
i agree with the premise here, but not the execution. if a small, weaker person, or a family with children wants to have a pet, i would caution them away from any medium or large dog. experienced owners have some leeway in my book, so long as they can control the animal. but if they are too small and fragile to properly restrain it, then i would recommend otherwise.
but this does not apply to pit bulls only. it applies to labs, akitas, shepherds, and any other dog that is large and strong enough to thoroughly dominate a child or small adult.
and yet you expect us to believe that you've adequately done your homework? i am not trying to be rude here, but this is ridiculously low-level stuff. within 15 minutes on wikipedia you should be better equipped to handle this conversation.
this is apparently news to you, but the pit bull breeds average somewhere around 30-60 lbs. they don't get as large and strong as you are talking about until they are crossbred with other dog breeds. some of those other breeds are strong enough to shake a large child or a small adult to death. purebred pits are typically not, unless we are talking about infants and other, very small children.
again you confuse your value system with a common value system, "common sense." you confuse your values with logic and fact. using phrases like "common sense" and "better choices" the way you are shows that you are not talking objectively and basing your choices off of research and logic, but off of emotional response and personal bias.
just as with humans, dog aggression has a time and a place. you are trying to tell us that because a man has "caveman instincts," he is uncontrollable. certain men, yes, are uncontrollable. those are called criminals, sociopaths, and those with severe emotional and mental problems. the rest of us are very capable of restraining our caveman urges and only unleashing them at appropriate times.
a properly trained and adequately guided dog will understand when and where to unleash its urges as well. a dog without proper training and guidance from a responsible pack alpha will follow its urges whenever it feels like it, especially when feeling threatened or stressed. that is what causes problems with canine-human violence.
Hunting dogs were bred to hunt and retrieve. Working dogs, such as sheep herding dogs were bred to work. There are dogs bred for their passive nature as so called lap dogs. Pitbulls were bred for one thing and one thing only...to be gladiators of the caninie world. That and the chemical makeup of their brains, inbreeding and irresponsible ownership, is enough to allow this breed find its way to extinction.
Hunting dogs were bred to hunt and retrieve. Working dogs, such as sheep herding dogs were bred to work. There are dogs bred for their passive nature as so called lap dogs. Pitbulls were bred for one thing and one thing only...to be gladiators of the caninie world.
this is what i was talking about earlier: people refuse to do even the minutest amounts of research, preferring instead to rely on ridiculously inept generalizations, deeply ingrained personal or family beliefs, and "common sense." sometimes they don't even try (as in the above statement) to disguise their ignorant beliefs with even a superficial coverup.
saying something like, "Pitbulls were bred for one thing and one thing only...to be gladiators of the caninie world," completely ignores decades and centuries of history and fact. the pit bull breeds were very definitely bred for hunting and working, and were not at all "bred for one thing and one thing only."
sick, if you want any credibility in this discussion, go read something, even if it is just answers.yahoo.com or the opening paragraphs of a wiki article or something.
Quote:
That and the chemical makeup of their brains, inbreeding and irresponsible ownership, is enough to allow this breed find its way to extinction.
on the contrary, the pit breeds are among the most popular in america right now, and there are estimated to be well over 10 million of them. further, it isn't the purebred pit bulls that are the issue (you know, the ones that you are afraid of). it is the monstrous mastiff mixes, which are by definition not inbred.
again, a little bit of research would do you a world of good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
