Pit Bull Question - Page 3 - DodgeBoard.com

K C Muffin · #21 (**permalink**) 08-26-2007, 09:22 PM

Then we disagree. Those dogs demonstrate as much aggression as a poodle. Could they turn? Yep - but so could the stupid poodle. In the meantime, those dogs are good watchdogs.

Detector · #22 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 04:14 AM

But poodles aren't near as LIKELY to kill as a pit bull. Not because they are naturally mean but because IF they do go postal they are, by design, very dangerous.

This is a very emotional subject am I'm just looking at it as a layman. And after all the law was passed by layman. My logic may not be right but it is how most people view the subject.

Honestly I don't understand why this is such a hard concept to comprehend. There is a reason why a truck driver requires a special license. Even if the driver is very good the potential to do serious damage is much higher, because of the design of the truck not the driver, so they are treated differently. Is that also racist? No, its common sense.

Let me try and explain my "logic."

Would there be a problem if I were to keep my pet great white shark in a fence in area of the public beach? I could argue the fact that I raised it as a pup and it wouldn't hurt a flea and that my neighbor has gold fish and no one is complaining. I could also say its not the fish, but the owners.

I had a Corgey that I used to believe wouldn't hurt a fly. She was great with kids and the most well behaved and good manured dog I've ever seen. A neighbor friend used to come over all the time and my dog would treat him like family. One day he grabbed on to me just messing around and my dog went postal on him in a split second. Had my dog been a pit bull I have no doubt he would have been seriously injured.

I agree the biggest part of the problem is stupid owners, but you can't make a law to keep stupid people from owning them.

Years ago it was not against the law to carry a gun. Stupid people owning guns made it necessary to outlaw carrying them. Now we have a law that somewhat keeps stupid people from carrying guns. We now also have a law to help keep stupid people from owning pit bulls.

Obviously a gun is only as dangerous as its owner but the type(breed) of gun makes a big difference in its potential to kill.

Army_of_One · #23 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K C Muffin

Then we disagree. Those dogs demonstrate as much aggression as a poodle. Could they turn? Yep - but so could the stupid poodle. In the meantime, those dogs are good watchdogs.

I suppose ur right...be right back..headed down to the aggressive poodle fights...oh yeah...did you read that article in the paper about the poodle eating the kid?

BroncoFan · #24 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

WRONG...they are not Docile as any other breed.

THE REAL PIT BULL--Your online source for American Pit Bull Terrier info!

Read the part about behavorial genetics of dogs. Some dogs are natural hunters, some are natural herd dogs and some are naturally aggressive. Breeds have different characteristics. You wouldn't take a pit bull to herd sheep and you wouldn't take a Chiahuahua to be a blood hound because these dogs don't demonstrate these traits in their blood. A bloodhound can be trained to be a bloodhound like a pit bull can be trained to fight but if you don't train a bloodhound they still have the natural tendancies. LIke what Detector was saying...you can have something bread in captivity but if it is a "wild animal" it still has the wild animal instincts.

Well Stated! It is not "illogical" to argue what dog traits are according to thier breed.

Flying Dutchman · #25 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 06:41 PM

If you had been raising and breeding great whites for the last few hundred years, and they were a domesticated animal, then I would take your example. Since they are not, your example is flawed.

If you want to argue that a pit bull has the ability to cause great damage, as compared to a poodle, then you are right. Were you and I, and others, disagree is you get ability mixed with inherited tendancy. If you were to get a pit bull as a pup and raise it with another dog, or dogs, or a cat or whatever, it would grow up thinking that was normal and not be aggressive. It's nature is not to be aggressive, it is to be tenacious in whatever it does, be that fighting, gaurding a house or just being a member of a pack. My truck is designed to tow a trailer, my car is not. A pit bull is desinged to be strong, a poodle is not. Aggressive and mistreated and misraised pits are dangerous, no doubt. On that I will not argue. The breed itself is not dangerous, that is the difference. Like I said, if the city was having a problem with people raising and owning aggressive Rottwieler type dogs then the ban would be aimed at them. While I will not argue that certain breeds have a greater than normal tendancy to be aggressive due to their dominant nature, pit bulls are not in that group since they are not a dominant behavior type dog. They couldn't be and still be used in fighting because they would not listen too or follow their owners instructions. Ever see when they raid or capture these dogs? They are domicile towards people because that is their nature, to be followers not leaders.

Detector · #26 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 03:41 AM

With that I agree FD.

I was simply trying to say any dog can snap given the right circumstances, but not all dogs are designed, by breed, to kill. I'm not saying the breed makes the pit bull any more/less aggressive, just more likely to kill due to its build and style of attack.

Most dogs, when they do get aggressive, will simply bite whats close like a hand or leg and then release. Natural tendencies come out during these moments and those whose natural instinct is to kill go for the head or face and don't let go or stop. Thats what makes them more dangerous than other breeds.

There are other breeds with the same natural instinct for this reason I think targeting just pit bulls is wrong.

The reason I used the big cat and shark as an example is that I believe it is accurate. The problem with these animals is that they have never been completely domesticated. That is to say they still retain some of their natural killer instincts and that makes them dangerous. Truly domesticated animals fight only as a defense mechanism. If their opponent runs off the fight is over. The natural instinct to kill drives some animals to continue the fight until its over. These breeds are dangerous.

Flying Dutchman · #27 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 06:02 PM

Thats just it, their "natural instinct" is not to kill. Their "natural instinct" is to be a part of a pack. I will not argue that they can be dangerous but you lose me in where they are designed to kill. They are physically designed to fight and hurt what they are fighting and with a weaker animal, that in turn will more than likely lead to it's death. But all that is mute because it is a matter of ones perspective at this point. My significant other is terrified and hates Dobermans. Now she knows that all Dobermans are not dangerous but she still hates them and never will trust them. I have a horrible fear and dislike of spiders. Now I will grab and catch a rattler, but get me near a garden spider and life turns ugly. I know that spiders are not really dangerous (although any creature that shoots silk out of it's ass cannot be all good) and they pose no real danger to me ( anything that turns it's prey into a soup and drinks it is pure evil I say), I still do not trust them.
I know where you are coming from and can honestly say that I do respect your opinion Detector.