They’re not dumping ‘pandemic puppies’, they’re dumping the pitbulls that nobody wants. Breeders for dog fighting are pumping out dogs nobody wants because they’re reactive, dangerous, and have the ability to kill a human being, then maul them.
Shelters are full of them. So desperate to get rid of them, shelters underplay their aggressiveness and danger. This puts the general population at risk. The UK just passed a new set of laws against more breeds of pitbulls, and rightfully so. You can see all the evidence they used to make their decision. It’s gory and sad. So many people’s lives, and smaller dogs, gone forever.
It’s not just for dog fighting. It’s backyard breeders who are hoping to make a quick buck, so they get the easiest dogs they can access, which is almost always pits, sell the puppies for whatever they can get, and then dump any of the ones they can’t sell. I see them constantly on nextdoor, and it’s appalling. And the kind of people who buy pit puppies from some rando are also the kind of people who dump them when they get too big and “oh we can’t keep up with their energy.”
Yep, this is the answer. Tons of people are trying to cash in on dog breeding like beaniebabies. Frenchies, pitties (including XXL toadline monstrosities), random mixes (shitpoos, bernadoodles, cockadoodles, etc), etc. Breeding rights, stud fees, etc. are big business and essentially none of these “breeders” have any clue what they’re doing.
In the vast majority of places in the US, there are no requirements or certifications needed to breed dogs. And now people will pay insane amounts of money for frenchies with rare coat colors, or pitbulls that are bred solely to be huge and squat with no concern about temperament or health; so irresponsible, backyard breeders who either ignore or are completely ignorant of proper breeding practice and refuse to get or can’t afford proper genetic testing and medical care for their animals, are breeding for phenotypes like coat color or being insanely huge and squat and breeding in serious congenital defects and abnormalities.
Then either buyers are stuck with these shitty, genetically fucked up dogs they paid like $5k-10k for that now need thousands more in veterinary care to treat all the issues bred into the dog (not to mention parvo, parasites, heartworms, etc.). Or the breeder’s little business collapses when they realize that they can’t afford to continue operating their shitty puppymill due to the fact that dog breeding is expensive and their fucked up breeds can’t give natural birth and so all need c-sections. But, it’s usually the first one because there are no shortage of buyers willing to pay stupid amounts of money and trust the “breeders” because they assume they’re experts.
So people often end up dumping the dogs when they realize they can’t care for them medically or are aggressive or whatever else, while backyard breeders continue to pump out fucked up dogs for profit.
… I’m sorry but… shitpoos? That’s hilarious. Though I imagine breeders would probably use a different term. I can’t imagine saying ‘I breed shitpoos’ with a straight face.
Lol yeah I don’t think they call them that (I believe they prefer “shih-poo”), but I certainly do
“Whew. Aren’t you glad WE aren’t man’s best friend?” --Cats
Yup. It needs to be a crime punishable by fines and prison time. The average lifetime cost of owning a dog can be as high as $50,000. Use that as a baseline for fining people who breed dogs while shelters are turning them away.
I take a look at my local shelter every now and then and it’s full of pit bulls and pit mixes.
Putbulls, pit mixes, and the occasional incredibly neurotic Chihuahua (rated the most aggressive breed when individual dog owners have been surveyed on their own dogs’ behaviors).
I think there’s a link to owner training for the chihuahua thing. The smaller the dog is, the less an owner is likely to train them. They don’t think they have to.
If that where the reason, we would see a lot more complaints about dogs like dachshunds and pugs. Though I do think you’re right that there is something specific about many people who choose to get Chihuahuas which involves them being the sort of irresponsible owner who doesn’t do any training and treats it like an ornament rather than an animal.
Do you have a link to any stats? There seem to be two sides to this debate, where one side insists that these breeds are inherently aggressive and the other side insists it isn’t true. I’m more inclined to believe to believe the former in my personal experience, but have always wanted something other than anecdotal to confirm.
Be mindful when reading the sources. This is a very polarizing debate, and it isn’t really as clear as “pitbulls are little angelbaby velvethippos” or “pitbulls are vicious killing machines”.
Pitbull is a range of phenotypes, not a breed. What we call pitbulls commonly are a mix of boxers, Am Staffs, bulldogs, american pit bull terriers, bull terriers, etc. So, we’re relying on police to ID these dogs after a bite has been reported, and so a large number of aggressive individuals of a variety of breeds/mutts might get lumped into “pitbull” by cops.
Also, dog attacks are more likely to occur in lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods where dog ownership practices are often less responsible, and cops are more likely to be in the first place. Pitbull-type dogs are more likely to be owned by lower SES individuals (in part because they’re so prevalent, but also due to cultural factors). So, it is likely that pitbull-type dogs are overrepresented by these statistics.
That said, it is wild that people claim that breeding does not impact behavior. Pitbulls and various bully breeds have often been bred to be aggressive and to guard territory, just like Cattle Dogs have been bred to nip at heels and keep creatures in a herd. Any cattle dog owner will tell you that their dog exhibits herding behavior even if it’s never seen a cow or sheep. It’s the same with some pitbulls and they happen to have one of the strongest bites of any type of dog coupled with a behavior where they latch on to the thing they’ve bitten and won’t let go, but will continue to thrash around causing major tissue damage. Contrast that to German Shepherds, another dog that makes up a large number of dog bite cases. Their bite force is less on average than that of a pitbull and most German Shepherd bites are fear-aggression related because GSDs are extremely neurotic and anxious (also due to breeding), so GSDs tend to bite and release unless they’re specifically bite trained, like for police work.
So anyway, just be aware that both sides of this debate try to put spin on it, but breed characteristics do matter, and our recordkeeping of dog breeds and bite statistics is flawed essentially due to the problems extant in law enforcement broadly.
For sure. I am not one of those people insistent on all pits being bad for the reasons you state (over-representation in statistics), but I also cannot believe that there isn’t some inclination for pits to exhibit aggressive behavior. I probably will never adopt a pit, but I have a friend who owns one (or a similar breed… not quite sure) but I love that dog.
For sure! I know a few pitties, too, and they are good dogs. It’s very much a “law of large numbers” type of thing. Likely more aggressive on average, but the answer is probably not breed bans and more likely restrictions on who can breed dogs (and maybe who can own certain dogs).
The problem is that if the city can’t even budget enough to feed these dogs, they’re certainly not going to be able to budget enforcing the breeding/ownership laws.
That is fair. Could be subsidized by the cost of breeding licenses, but the administrative burden would be greater. I feel like the breed ban administration would be difficult as well - since pitbulls aren’t really a breed, what constitutes one? Is it only American Pitbull Terriers? Because most pitbulls aren’t APTs, but some mix of bully breeds. Who would make that determination in each individual case? It’s a tough issue all around.
This is a very well-thought and considered take. I usually sit on the side of not banning specific dog breeds as I’m yet to see compelling statistics to back up such a ban, or numbers on dog attacks where breed bans have been put in place that shows it works. Your point is very valid though that because this is such an emotional debate, people on both sides have a tendency to exaggerate their positions. I would really like to see compelling statistics one way or the other, as I feel at the moment a lot of this debate is being held in unscientific territory.
As a husky owner, I can definitely attest that different breeds have specific behavioural phenotypes associated with their breed’s genotype. My husky acts just like all of her husky friends which is pretty different to all of the other dogs we know of different breeds. I just don’t know that this factor outweighs the owner’s responsibility in raising and training them well. Even within a single breed, there’s often significant variation.
Dog ownership is honestly just so easy to fall into without being prepared, and there’s no way to ensure people will take responsibility for the life they’re buying. You’re literally just handing over money half the time, like a car or a TV.
I couldn’t handle anything with the energy of a husky or Aussie or shepherd, but if I hadn’t actively done the research and realized that, I would probably have a shepherd mix with too much energy right now. LSGs are right in the sweet spot for me with work, health and fitness level, etc.
There’s nothing stopping the average person from getting in over their head. Energy levels, space, and size are all considerations that people just handwave and “figure out later.”
For some people, life legitimately changes. Injured or sick suddenly and can’t take care of a doodle’s unrelenting energy anymore? Divorce, a death, a forced move into a smaller space, all sorts of legitimate things, but I don’t think these people’s dogs are the ones filling shelters. There’s no penalty for at-fault surrenders (rightly, to avoid more horrible options being taken), and there’s no required education to get a dog, it’s a recipe for disaster.
People aren’t going to put more thought into getting a dog than other parts of their lives, and people are constantly doing things without thinking nowadays, whether it’s car loans, buying unnecessary TVs/phones/computers, or similar. Overleveraged mentally and emotionally.
I think breeding legislation is the right move, but it would take a lot of will that’s not there and need provisions to handle oops litters and such without driving people underground.
The stats are easily manipulated by either side. The fact of the matter is that, given the number of attacks on humans and animals by pit bulls, and the average age of pits, roughly 1 in 10,000 pits will attack something in their life. This is an order of magnitude more frequent than rottweilers (the next most dangerous breed), and when a pit bull attacks, it’s more likely to kill its victim than any other dog breed.
1 in 10,000 is large enough for some people to say the whole breed needs to be euthanized, it’s small enough for some people to say that it’s negligible, and it’s at just the right spot for me to say that it should be illegal to breed them, but existing ones shouldn’t be euthanized.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/
Dog Attack Statistics by Breed
Many dog advocates argue that there is no such thing as a bad breed, only a bad owner. Still, it can be helpful to understand which breeds of dogs are most commonly involved in bite incidents or acts of aggression. Dog attacks by breed statistics are invaluable both for individuals looking for a dog to adopt as well as for those who interact with animals who want to minimize risk.
The breed that commits the most attacks overall is pit bulls.
Pit bulls are involved in more dog attacks than any other breed. In fact, the American Animal Hospital Association reports this breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2% and German Shepherds were the third most dangerous breed, involved in 17.8% of bite incidents.⁶
The breed that is most likely to be involved in a fatal attack is pit bulls.
Pit bulls are both more likely to be involved in bite incidents and more likely to cause serious injury or death when a bite does occur. In fact, from 1979 to 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined pit bulls were involved in the most fatal dog attacks, accounting for 28% deaths due to dog bites during that same time period.⁷
I’ll add, I like pitties. I’ll also advise taking this with a grain of salt as so many mixed breed dogs fall into the pitbull umbrella.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8819838/ that still seems to find it may be more the human influence on a breed(or mixed breed dog as it were) than manifested in the breed itself.
An important finding was Pit Bull-type dogs in our community sample, as a group, were not more aggressive or likely to have a behavioral diagnosis than other dogs. As the nascent field of canine behavior advances, it will be important to better account for human influences on dog behavior. Our results showed genetic screening of canine behavior is feasible and suggest it may be useful for owners, breeders, shelters, working dog institutions and veterinarians.
If you were to compare the findings of the direct connection of anxiety, many smaller dogs have this but we as large humans tend to dismiss this in smaller dogs. The only reason we really focus into the pit bull is the association we’ve developed and the size. Also larger dogs are usually trained in defence. Less so with smaller dogs which also suffer with anxiety. No doubt a lot of owners get the ideal that they want to get a pit bull to install fear into other humans as a form of protection. this is a human introduction of a behavior.
Anecdotally my family owned many dogs. Sometimes we’d get a litter where two dogs behaved very differently to each other. We inherited many dogs with behavioural problems because of human error and the breed didn’t make a difference so much as size definitely did amongst the decisions many people made. No one wants to keep a large dog with behavioural issues. Why people associate it with pit bulls is mainly because statistically they are more prone to treat that particular breed (and in many cases any breed that looks associated to the pit bull) in such a way that installs more anxiety. That is a human error. Not a breed error.
Are those statistics weighted against breed prevalence? Because if not, those data aren’t really telling us anything significant. If pit bulls as a breed are overrepresented statistically, that would be a significant finding. Looking at the source material for the claim here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950 doesn’t clearly state if the numbers are per capita of dog breed or if they’re just sheer numbers of attacks, regardless of prevalence of breed. Do you have a source that evaluates the statistics in such a manner?
This should be higher. I would be interested to know more about the actual numbers. A quick search also showed shelters are not good at accurately identifying breeds.
Couple of issues with this data. 1- People are much more likely to report bites from larger dogs (since they cause injury that requires medical treatment and reporting is done automatically) 2- Any stats by design are going to be correlational evidence and do not guarantee causality so it’s not at all clear that rate of bites by pits are higher or just more frequently reported because they are pits or because they are so common . 3- As others have pointed out pits are more likely to be found in lower SES homes where resources for training, toys and healthy outlets for dog energy like time for long, regular walks and playtime is less readily accessible. 4-Breeds most associated with aggression are most likely to be treated by humans in ways that incite dogs’ anxiety, which is a precursor to aggressive behavior.
I think that pitties are just the victim of really bad press. Once it became common knowledge that they were used in dog fighting, it became part of what everyone “knows” about pits. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy by seeing only results they expect rather than thinking about why they expected to see it in the first place.
There seem to be two sides to this debate, where one side insists that these breeds are inherently aggressive and the other side insists it isn’t true.
Too many people believe whatever they want to believe.
Certainly some dogs of specific breeds are less aggressive than others but all dogs have been bred to have some sort of specific trait(s) (small, large, fluffy, “cute”, fast, intelligent, etc) and some breeds were explicitly bred to be aggressive.
People want to believe certain breeds aren’t inherently aggressive because it leads to exactly this type of problem.
I don’t know that it’s possible to quantify aggressiveness.
The solution is to heavily regulate breeding and associated sales because that’s exactly what creates the surplus of animals no one wants to take care of, and its something people should consider before buying any animals at all.
All you’ve gotta do is Google 'human fatalities by dog breed chart" the numbers are all that matters, and frankly I’m annoyed that the data isn’t enough to deter people from owning these dogs. A friend from grade school had 1 attack his daughter to the point where the kid was hospitalized. They had that dog euthanized, and went right out and got another pit bull. You can’t fix stupid.
You’re generally right but pretty misinformed all the same.
One thing I can say is that if shelters are playing down aggressiveness etc, it’s because of stupid ‘no kill’ laws that forces them to keep the majority of these shit dogs and not be about to euthanize them. Thank all the animal lovers on Facebook who have no comprehension of the situation, have no interest in helping the dog themselves but they’ll sure as fuck tell anyone what they think if they don’t take care of the dog.
It’s a perpetual cycle, lifestyles of the poor and dumb.
The shelters that do kill dogs don’t just kill aggressive dogs though, they kill dogs they think nobody will want too. My boss has the most beautiful dog I’ve ever seen but he’s deaf so you have to communicate with him through hand movements. Before she got him the shelter was going to kill him in a few weeks. This wasn’t a Pit or any other dog some people think are inherently aggressive
I always adopt from shelters (or, once, a rescuer) anyway, but this makes me feel even more relieved that the county animal shelter is a no-kill shelter, space problems or not.
Yeah cool but you’re kinda part of the problem. I’m sure he’s a lovely dog but the reality is probably 5% or less of dog owners are equipped to handle a dog like that. Most can’t train a normal dog, let alone a dog with a disability and it’s all sunshine and rainbows to have the dog go to someone’s home but the amount of returned and deaf dogs we get is horrendous because people just don’t want to deal with them.
Correct me if there is data suggesting otherwise, but I dusagree that the “not kill” laws are stupid - I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs. A law which protects animals from getting killed cannot, in my opinion, be a bad law - because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
because every life, even that of a dog, is worth fighting for.
Agreed, but in reality, the choices are A) adopt dangerous dogs out to people, B) hold onto the dogs for their entire natural life, C) release them onto the streets, or D) euthanize some of them.
A is obviously not ideal; a human getting killed by a dog that they expected to be nice is worse than that dog dying. B would be great if shelters had infinite space and infinite funding, but realistically they have limited space and limited funding. That leaves us with C or D. Stray animals make more stray animals, they attack people, pets, and wildlife, they spread disease, and they tend to die horrible deaths. Euthanasia sucks, but the real alternatives are worse.
The real solution that no one wants to implement is to make it a crime to have dogs and cats that aren’t spayed or neutered, with extraordinarily rare exception. The only dogs that should be allowed to be bred are working dogs, and that should be closely regulated. Your shepherd/retriever mix, however cute he is, should not make more puppies as long as shelters are overflowing and turning animals away.
“But wouldn’t that lead to the extinction of these companion animals?” Be realistic–this law would never catch every single illegal breeder, and it would never prevent strays from breeding. Dogs and cats would not go extinct, they would just stop bringing shelters to capacity and beyond.
Those illegal breeders would make bank.
Hmm, I get your point - I think you’re raising a compelling case.
I think, for me it comes down to the belief that only very, very few dogs are so aggressive and dangerous that no intervention will be able to change that. I (with great reluctance :) )agree that if a dog will never be able to get adopted, it is responsible to think if it would be more humane to euthasize him. But there are also far, far too many cases where dogs are killed because there just isn’t enough money or interest in them to give them special treatment and care so that they can e.g. trust humans again and not see them as danger.
I also agree, however, that it would probably be a good idea to implement limiting measures to the amount of dogs out there, so that the problem isn’t growing in scope - e.g. those you proposed. In the end though that can’t be the solution to the moral question “is it okay for us to kill dogs with whom we haven’t tried all in our power”, it can just be a supporting factor so that we can avoid making these decisions as much as possible.
Well you can’t really have evidence on something that is opinion from first hand experience.
The reason I disagree with them is that the majority of these dogs are going to spend a year or more essentially locked in a medium security dog prison before being put down because they were never suitable for readoption in the first place but you’ve got to play the game before they can be put down or wait for them to bite one of the handlers.
I agree, money would solve the entire problem but it’s a struggling industry and I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. Until it does, the no kill laws are hurting more animals than they save.
I understand. I’m living in Germany, so our laws also probably differ as well - but is there a law which permits that if a dog e.g. doesn’t get adopted within a year, it may be euthasized? I thought that a “no killing” law is absolute and that an animal in a shelter never is allowed to be killed, no matter the circumstance.
No kill at least in Australia means you can’t put animals to sleep due to over capacity, time frame etc. The only time they can be put down is when they’ve attacked or are showing high signs of aggression and the behaviour assessor finds they aren’t suitable for readoption.
At that point, it becomes a duty of care to put the animal down as it’s cruel to keep it in a kennel for the rest of its life and it can’t be trusted as a family pet.
I think the problem is that shelters don’t have enough funding to care for all dogs.
Well sure. Who’s gonna cover that funding gap? Not me.
So, what, let the excess or aggressive dogs starve but treat them nicely until they do? Let them run feral?
Or humanely put them down?
Edit: Y’all downvoting me should go volunteer at a local shelter for a while. I love dogs. I absolutely love dogs. But because of irresponsible owners and breeders we often have too many dogs and full shelters. Resources are not infinite.
It is cruel to keep dogs alive in increasingly smaller spaces, or hoard them, as we run out of room because you feel guilty about putting them down.
I’m not saying I’m opposed to rehoming, rescuing, or fostering dogs. Or opposed to shelters in general! I think those practices are important. Our current dog is a rehome.
But even PETA will point out the dangers of making all shelters no-kill, like some states are doing.
Spay and neuter your pets. That’s the real solution here.
Mohawk Hudson, for instance, has a lot of pit bulls, mastiffs and cane corsos.
Seems to be a lot of aggressive breeds of dogs, which are becoming banned throughout the nation. That might be more of the problem.
Yeahhhh these people aren’t poor, they just want puppies, not dogs.
Puppies are the worst idk who prefers them over trained adult dogs
A lot of people do not understand how much work puppies take to own and raise. They think they’re just smaller cuter versions of adult dogs.
Same kind of idiots that think having a child will fix their relationships.
You gotta remember that half of all people are stupider than the average person, and it only takes like the dumbest 10% to be like “he’s not cute anymore so I don’t want him” for shelters to start filling up
People who don’t know what they are getting into, and as soon as they encounter a situation of their own creating… they bail because its hard. Pit bull owner (AST rescue mutt), they are not a beginner breed, they require ensuring that there is a hierarchy in the house and force an understanding of that. They are stubborn, hard headed, and amazing dogs (Tiptoe is a hurricane of tongues). We have a 6 yo at home, and I have to force his training and training for her. It’s a lot of work, and most people are allergic to work when it becomes inconvenient to them.
Aggression is something that is there genetically and you have to work against it. Again that’s work, but you will find that any dog that hasn’t been traumatized (and some that have… again love my tip) leans naturally to happiness, not aggression.
Short answer is that people are awful, and because of that most of the time the dog suffers. That should be recognized for what it is.
Bonus… Pit Love: https://ibb.co/yVRW1Zh
yeah, you never see glut of doodles sittin in shelter
Lol neither cane corso or mastiff are an aggressive breed.
Mastiffs are extremely protective of their owners and it gives people the impression they are aggressive. Same with the Cane Corso. Both dogs are more defensive then aggressive, but the potential is still there especially when owned by people who easily dumb dogs. You know they didn’t bother training them which is the main issue
Pit bulls aren’t in any meaningful fashion becoming banned throughout the nation. Of the 338M Americans 215M live in states that ban breed specific regulation outright.
https://resources.bestfriends.org/article/anti-dog-breed-specific-legislation-state
Pit bulls aren’t illegal in the remaining states its just not illegal itself to ban them. Only a tiny minority of counties and zero states ban pit bulls.
They are also large dogs that can be 60-100+ pounds each, which for a lot of people is too much dog. It seems a case of people looking at a cute puppy and not researching what a full grown version looks like. People do the same thing with iguanas and fish too.
I feel bad for the dogs but those breeds need experienced, capable owners.
The pit bull discussion never ends. Pit bulls are like guns: objectively bad for society but some people really want to have them so we all have to suffer the consequences. Pit bull lovers don’t care about all the victims, they only care about their personal needs and “rights”. You can’t convince someone not to be selfish so the entire discussion doesn’t make any sense.
It makes me sad how many ignorant people upvoted this.
Kids killed by pit bulls make me sadder.
Irresponsible parenting makes me the saddest.
There are no bad dogs, only bad owners.
This has been said so many times it’s boring: chihuahua with a bad owner never killed anyone.
Also: would you support mandatory background checks, permits and training for pit bull owners? To make sure that they only go to good owners…I support educating pet owners, and regulating “puppy mills”.
Dogs aren’t guns.
Educating and regulating how? Mandatory certificates for pit bull owners? What regulations of “puppy mills” would stop pit bulls from killing people?
That’s not what the data shows though. The vast majority of dog attacks are by pitbulls.
Put bulls are not an objective bad for society. They’re not ruthless killing machines. They’re not even more aggressive than other dogs.
Do you perhaps know what the word “pit” in the name pitbull stands for?
Do they do anything that other dogs can’t do? Besides killing people. What’s the benefit of having pit bulls?
Even the homeless keep their dogs, money should not be the issue.
deleted by creator
Noooo such cute doggies why??? 😭
The pitbull breed can still be saved, we just have to consistently kill those who show aggressive behavior.
Edit: all right pitbulls are not all bad,some of them are even brave, I heard a story of how one died, a kid was trapped in a burning house, the pitbull seeing that, bravely broke into the house, so it could maul a child one more time.
Or you can spay / neuter them.
I would be okay with them being persevered by zoos. They do not belong to the general public just like we don’t tolerate private ownership of jaguars, hyenas, and other dangerous animals.
The poor, dumb, and bleeding heart are still grifting and getting grifted I see.
I think I’ve met a single pitt owner who didn’t want to breed their dog first.
It’s almost definitely some Freudian shit where they’re just as poor and disadvantaged as that dog and one of the few things that they think will make them happy is being able to have kids.
Nobody but other poor fuckers who can’t afford the dog wants the puppies, they’re too poor and busy to train them, and they just get worse and worse every time they’re forced to breed with another one of their cousins since nobody else is going near.
Jesus Christ! Why do people blame the dogs when it’s the owners responsibility. I have a pitbull that I took in from the pandemic. He is the sweetest dog in the world to me and my family. He is patient and gentle with my kids. We got a French bulldog puppy for Christmas. He is so gentle with her. If you come in my house and I am there. He will love on you and want pets.
But, if you come over and I act suspicious about you he won’t be pleasant. I keep a muzzle on him in public because he’s really protective of myself and my family. I am under no illusion that he loves everyone like us.
Here is the other thing. I have grown up with dogs most of my life. I’ve had Jack russle terriers. I’ve had Great Danes. I’ve had boxers. Ive had French bulldogs, and pitbulls.
Of all the dogs I’ve owned pitbulls are the hardest to train. They are not a beginner dog. You have to remember that just like people they have moods and personalities independent of your own. Just because that dog loves and is nice to the pack it lives around everyday doesn’t mean that same courtesy is extended to strangers.
“Jesus christ, why do people blame the dogs”
Then goes on to explain that it is in fact, the dogs.
Any dog is capable of maiming people. A full face muzzle and a pinch collar keeps that from happening. So, like I said. If people took the proper precautions. Then a dog attack can’t happen. But they think that their dog loves everyone like the dog loves its family.
So if a dog attack is fully preventable. Then it is the owners fault.
Any dog is capable of killing people, but you are deluding yourself if you think that a pitbull is not significantly better equipped to kill than any other dog breed. Gameness is a real trait. There’s a reason the Internet isn’t full of retrievers and cocker spaniels nearly killing horses.
Bro… it has occurred to me that I have stepped into god’s special ed class. You are the second or third person to reply to my comments without reading my comments. I said that I agree. Pitbulls are dangerous and very capable of killing.
However, as someone that has only been attacked by a Shiba Inu and a Rottweiler. I have broken up a few different dogs fighting. I can speak from experience that really all dogs should be muzzled in public.
If you want me to say that a pitbull is more capable of killing. Then you’ll have to tell me than what. Chihuahuas? Absolutely! Irish wolfhound or Rottweiler? Maybe not.
What I’m saying is people should be held responsible if their dog attacks someone. I am confident mine can’t attack someone. Not because he’s super chill or something. But because I make it so his bitey end can’t bite you. I’m beginning to think you guys don’t know what a muzzle is. I’m talking about a cage that covers his entire mouth.
Like this thread is making me lose faith in humanity. I’ve agreed with you guys this whole time. Please show me where I said that pitbulls are safe. Seriously, please show me.
If you want me to say that a pitbull is more capable of killing. Then you’ll have to tell me than what. Chihuahuas? Absolutely! Irish wolfhound or Rottweiler? Maybe not.
I literally said “any other dog breed.” Pit bulls are uniquely capable of killing because of a combination of their bite strength and gameness. I agree that if you have a muzzle on a dog, it becomes incapable of biting. That’s cool. I never said “your pit bull is more likely to kill someone than any other dog, even when it has its muzzle on and that other dog doesn’t.”
So, here’s where I will disagree with you. I admit I had to lookup gameness for a definition. Gameness speaks to their pain threshold and tenacity, but not of viciousness. I’m here to tell you from experience. All dogs over a certain size have a ridiculously high pain threshold. As far as bite force pitbulls aren’t even in the top 10.
But when you get right down to it. It still always comes down to irresponsible owners. Even if what you said was right. If people that owned them took the proper steps to prevent attacks then attacks wouldn’t happen. People should treat their dogs like a loaded gun. Make sure the safety is on in public.
Dog attacks are preventable. It’s not hard. But anyway. Yall have a good night. I’m going to play video games with the woman.
It still always comes down to irresponsible owners.
It cannot only come down to irresponsible owners. Like, a baseball bat is just as capable of killing someone as a gun, but it does not only come down to how irresponsible their owners are–an irresponsible baseball bat owner is far less likely to kill someone with their bat than an irresponsible gun owner. People should not have to treat their dogs like a loaded gun. I have never seen someone talk like that about a border collie, or a dalmation, or a golden retriever. I certainly don’t see my dad’s saint bernard/black lab mix like that.
Again, I don’t have anything against specific dogs. I don’t think all pit bulls need to die just for being pit bulls. But I also don’t see why there needs to be another generation of any breed of dog that needs to be treated like a gun. Get them neutered, enjoy the time you have with them, and then get a mutt in 20 years.
Nah, pit bulls in particular are highly capable of mauling people and other dogs and children and babies. You people all sound like idiot parents whose idiot children act out at school. Youre in denial saying “my little billy would never rip the face off of another child he’s an angel!”. I bet he can be a great dog day to day, but one day that switch is gonna flip
What the actual hell are you talking about. My dog very well might kill someone if I let it. I literally just got done typing that. I am under no illusion that he is safe around anyone other than the people that live under my roof. That is unless I take the proper precautions. Once again proper precautions mean a full face muzzle and pinch collar. That also means having your dog leashed in public at all times.
However, and this may be where you are confused. It’s a cultural thing here. People where I live take their homestead SERIOUSLY. There is a procedure to knocking on doors uninvited here. You knock/ring doorbell then you walk back out into the yard. Don’t stand on the porch.
Now some of these things may or may not be true, but you should always assume all are true. When you knock on that door you should assume that you’re going to hear an angry dog. You should assume that the door will only open as far as the chain will allow. You should also assume that the person behind that door has a gun in arms reach. If none of those things happen great, but better to be safe than sorry.
People around here are wary of strangers. I trust my dog not to bite me or mine. I don’t trust him to not bite you or yours, but as long as you don’t come in my house when I’m not here. You have nothing to worry about.
With that being said. I don’t want my dog to like you. There is literally no reason for anyone other than my family to be in my house.
Man you’d really lose your shit if you knew what I did to people that call me uninvited. Ya know, scammers, bill collectors, and stuff like that. I don’t get many of those now. I think it becomes a legal issue within the company.
There is literally no reason for anyone other than my family to be in my house.
You may feel this way, but it is objectively not true. Police, EMTs, and firefighters might all find themselves with the legal jurisdiction to enter your home, and having an attack dog just leads to liability for you should that happen.
If you are arguing that your dog is a weapon that will protect your house, you’re acknowledging the potential for your dog to use violence against someone without your direction. This means that you’re leaving the dog, who has no understanding of the legal limits of self defense and defense of property, with making the decision on whether or not to use lethal force.
It is not surprising, given that this is apparently the philosophy of many pitbull owners, that so many maulings occur, since it literally just takes one instance of the dog feeling sufficiently aggravated to lead to an attack, and this is somehow treated as a feature and not a defect.
Bro I just read the first paragraph. So, I’m going to stop you right there. We don’t call 911 in my house, and before you say “but what if…”. We don’t call 911 in my house. Cops would have to have a warrant. Back in my crazy days. I drug a dying woman out of my house. I put her in my car and drove her to the emergency room just so I didn’t have to call 911. I don’t call 911.
NO ONE belongs in my house without a warrant. If someone has a warrant then I have bigger problems than my dog. See I explained all this in a post here that got deleted yesterday for being off topic. People down here are weird about their homestead. I think it’s a cultural thing. But kids are given a pass teenagers get threatened when walking through peoples property. Adults may get shot. You don’t go on another person’s property down here without a good excuse.
But I’m going to tell you like I told the other guy. This has dragged on for over 24 hours now. I’m going to go hang out with my family. I have a gingerbread house to build, and baldurs gate 3 to finish. I hope you have a happy holiday.
Cool man
Removed by mod
Umm, we definitely don’t need a muzzle for the family labs when in public. That absolutely says something about the breed.
I’m glad you’re happy with your dog and work hard to keep it happy and peaceful, but that simply does not change the fact that it is an inherently dangerous breed (that has been intentionally bred for aggression).
Btw, I absolutely think that a dog’s owner bears full responsibility for them. But that doesn’t mean it’s a safe breed we should be promoting, either.
Labs are in the top 10 for most bites and deaths according to to this website. Sooooo…
Sorry, but your comment reminded me of this video
So what happened? Did the states outlaw euthanasia?
Citizens! Consumers! The economy is rebounding, because an ever dwindling number of large corporations are extracting wealth from workers at such an obscene rate that the GDP is going up!
Basically everyone at this point:
Also uh, even though they have a bad reputation for many mostly valid reasons, Pitbulls and other such guard/attack dog type breeds remain hugely popular with the non terminally online and non boutique, esoteric dogs as a status symbol crowd, many times /because they want an aggressive dog/ as they live in areas of high crime, due to aforementioned collapsing economy/society.
Ok…explain 10-15 years ago when your collapse wasn’t happening. I won’t wait
Explain… what exactly, 10-15 years ago? Overcrowded animal shelters?
Sure, you find the numbers on animal shelter capacity nationwide going back 20 years, divided up by breed, how many stayed how long, how many were refused etc…
Was there an overcrowding of animal shelters 10 to 15 years ago, I dont even know.
If there was, then well 10 to 15 years ago was the Housing Bubble / Financial Panic / Great Recession, so that would also make sense.
Your weird ass rambling of economic collapse being a cause for dogs going to shelters or some nonsense…you seem like the type to hold a bullhorn and tell people their problems.
