Pit Bulls were bred to fight so they can inflict a lot of damage, more so than a poodle of same weight and height, I believe. They also have a stronger instinct to protect than a lot of breeds. Plus, they have a much stronger will than a lot of breeds so a firm hand and a great deal of dog training knowledge are required to raise these breeds properly. Therefore, the breed should not be raised by the general public, let alone low-lifes.

You might want to look into some fact about bulldogs as opposed to myth. They are way down on the aggression list. Their will is no more or less strong than many other breeds. They do have competetive instincts & prey drive like all dogs. As far as the firm hand, they are the most eager to please breed you will find. As SOON as the dog knows what is expected of him, he will respond.

So let's take your logic to task. If we eliminate these dogs do you think that low-lifes will reform or find another breed to use as a gambling tool or weapon.

Ban the behavior, not the breed.

Why is the term "Pit" attached to this paticular type of Bull dog ?

As you may or may not know, from it's inception tenacity has been one of the breed's hallmarks, as it is with many terriers. Apparently some enterprising humanitarians decided that they could stage fights between these dogs and gamble on the outcome. As these events gained popularity they began to be held in a small "pit." This had been going on for many years and the dog was still referred to as a "bulldog" and held the posotion as the most popular pet in America for many many years.

The term "pit bull" is fairly recent as is the dog's popularity with thug's & low-lifes looking to enhance their image.

As to the earlier comment about them being "butt ugly", beauty is in the eye of the beholder but here is my dog again. Everywhere I take him people stop me to tell me how beautiful he is.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1128698330.jpg

The major flaw in all of this speculation seems to be most people's (understandable) tendency to personify, or project their human experience into, the nature of animals. How a dog is trained DOES, in fact, shape how it will respond in many situations, i.e., if consistently taught certain behaviors, it is logical that an animal will consistently exhibit those behaviors. However one's analysis is tainted if the response, or anticipated response is taken in light of human logic and perceptions. Where we would expect a certain LOGICAL response to a given stimulus, an animal, no matter how mild-mannered or well trained, will ultimately and involuntarily act (not CHOOSE to act, as a thinking person might - or as we might wish to project on the animal response) according to chemical responses (instinct) over which it has no control or discipline. Instinct will ALWAYS override learned habit, or conditioning. It would be ignorant (and based purely in emotion connected to a personified understanding of a non-person) to try and understand why, in what we might consider a completely non-threatening circumstance, the "loving, caring" family dog ate the face off a well-known family member. Smells, sounds, visual stimuli, et cetera, that we are either unaware of or think nothing of, can (and do) combine in a manner that set chemical processes in motion that for the most part won't be interrupted, and are not the "choice" or deliberate response of the actual animal.

Sharks don't eat surfers because they are mean. When the senses combine it's, black+movement+chemicals in the water signaling flesh present = automatic, involuntary muscle and digestive responses. Not, "yum, time to eat!"

Even by using words such as "raise" when talking about animals indicates our tendency to see them as little dumb people.

With that being the case dogs like the German Shephard, Rottwieler, Doberman & many others have been used for hundreds of years to guard property against 2 & 4 legged marauders. They are used by armies & plice departments world wide for the express purpose of attacking human beings. Your line of reasoning would exhonerate the bulldog as human aggression was avoided in their breeding for years. Human aggression in a dog fighting for it's life in a small closed space with 3 humans didn't work out so well. When is the last time you saw a cop with a bulldog? They aren't used because they are much more reluctant to attack a human than other breeds.

I guess what I was trying to say was that while trends and inbred tendencies DO exist, and while conditioning CAN have SOME effect on how an animal responds, it bugs me when generalizations are made such as a well trained Rott, Pit, poodle, cat or whatever will be dependably loyal and predicably loving. That may be partly true, but the fact of the matter is the same Rott/poodle/whatever that fights off 3 other dogs because they are trying to get at little Junior is just as likely to bite off his owner's bawls because a gnat flew by his ear.

I'm not being concise enough. People should own whatever dog they want - with "violent" tendencies bred in, or "lapdog" temperment. Your choice. But when something unfortunate happens, it is silly to attach human understanding to it as "bad" or "violent". It is neither - it is simply biology.

Violence is a human invention - the willful, calclulated and often malicious implementation of built in defense mechanisms and abilities. That is not how animals committ what we consider "violent" acts.

Goes back to several posts in this thread saying the same thing. Dog owners who say "my dog would never hurt anyone" is ignorant about animal behavior. These are the folks who let their dogs run in public off leash or keep them in yards with inadequate fencing.

Mule your dog is very handsome. Seriously. From the posts you have submitted it sounds like you are a very responsible owner and take the necessary precautions. You have every right to keep that dog as long as it does not step over the line. I as a parent have to assume that most dog owners are not as diligent as you and approach all dog encounters as potentially catastrophic.

I think we were making the same point from two different angles.

Therefore I'll shut up and lurk some more.

Not exactly true, as evidence of unprovoked violence and gang-like actions have been observed in other species.....
Notably apes and Dolphins...

Agreed. The way I expressed it was incorrect. It is our sense of entitlement to individual liberty, emotion, sympathy, etc. that makes "violence" personal or inhumane (fitting) to us. In the animal world it is largely utilitarian.

I'm sure the term go's way back to the 19th century were they were fought in pits. When the breed arrived in America the name " American Pit Bullterrier" was adopted.

Dog fighting is a cruel sport that goes back to ancient Rome between dogs, Tigers / Lions and even Men, i.e. Blood sport.

In England the sport was expanded on, to include the fighting of Bulls. And they developed a little Warrior of their own " the Bull dog "
The dog's nose is pugged so it can breath easily when it has the Bull by the throat.
These dogs were also fought against one another in Pit's to the death of one of the dogs, sometimes both.

As people became more civilized they started outlawing the cruel sport, first was Holland back in 1689. It took England another 150 years to outlaw the sport.
I'm sure there are still matches held in secret much like Cock fights.

In America the breed was expanded on and the name "Pit Bull"
stuck, Short for American Pit Bull terrier. Breeders here increased their weight with a more muscular head.

The breed is still changing from what I see. With some people breeding bigger dogs that look even more capable of their original purpose.
SmileWavy

some more food for thought

follow the link

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Guys, there's a lot of data available on dog attacks and breeds, and I think it might be worth consulting.

Here is a study of dog breeds involved in fatal attacks. http://www.dogbitelaw.com/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf The leading breed by far is the rottweilers, with pit bulls a respectable second, then several breeds (GSD, husky-type, doberman, etc) compete for third.

Here is data on dog bites treated in emergency rooms. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm

I notice that many of the websites on the topic are "partisan", either operated by dog bite lawyers (with an incentive to maximize the problem) or by dog lovers (with an incentive to minimize the problem), so you have to look for the actual statistics gathered by researchers and government agencies, rather than the interpretation given by the partisan websites.

I also realize that just knowing that rottweilers killed 60 people in a given period in the US, while retrievers killed 10 (let's suppose, I don't recall the exact #s) isn't the whole story. You'd also like to know how many rottweilers and retrievers there were in the US. Maybe someone will unearth that data. (But I suspect there's fewer rottweilers than retrievers.)

Anyway, I've just skimmed a few of the reports, and my impression is that pit bulls don't bite people any more other than do other breeds, but they kill people a lot more often. In other words, when a pit bull does go bad, the typical consequences are a lot worse than when a retriever or GSD goes bad.

I don't know whether this is because the pit bull is such a powerfully built dog, or because the dog was originally bred to fight to the death [edit: if that is in fact the case - I see there's some doubt] and still retains that instinct, so that they press home an attack rather than giving one bite.

I know that if someone nearby owned a pit bull, I'd go talk to him/her and make sure that the dog was well trained and well secured. If I had any doubts, I'd ask the local police and animal control to check. If the person took a "none of your business" attitude, I'd escalate until the person either took the necessary steps, left the area, lost his homeowners' coverage or his lease, and/or was positioned so that any serious incident with the dog would cause the owner to be jailed and lose his assets.

The real reason is because of the ancient sport of "Bull Baiting", the name does not derive from fighting other dogs.

http://www.pitbullregistry.com/Pit%20Bull%20History.htm
http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/pitbull_history.htm



IMO this thread has really exposed the ignorance of many individuals, but I'm also glad to see there are quite a few open minded pelicans out there. As Skipdup Terry, Mule and other owners have pointed out the "terror dog" hype associated with pit bulls are just that, hype, fueled by the media. IMO it's like a Porsche, you won't get it until you own one.
Man is to blame............................for everything. If that fails, well then we can always say it's Bush's fault :D .

Do you have some data on attacks and bites that would improve the image of the pit bull?

Also, Pari, are you sure that the dog wasn't bred to fight other dogs? Because that is the breed history as described in some pit bull enthusiast websites that I'm finding. For example

http://www.badrap.org/rescue/breed.cfm which says that in 1835 bull baiting was outlawed and replaced by dog fighting for which the American Pit Bull Terrier was specifically bred.

Some of this stuff is pretty simple, Don't you think ?

If a potential dog owner did a little research and used sound judgment to choose a breed of dog, like many do, we wouldn't be discussing this.

But a lot of people make choices determined by a rational that is less well founded and selfish.

Sure these dogs for the most part are harmless in most situations, BUT , in that one instance were their inbred capabilities might get a hold of a person or a child for whatever reason is why I can't see the logic in owning one.

The rewards are just not worth the risk to most thinking individuals
Too many other breeds of dogs available that are a safer bet.

I bought a rottie when I was younger. When I lived in my first apartment. The neighbor upstairs from me had one. What a nice dog it was. My dog was great with people but terrible around other dogs. The breed is very loyal and intelligent but I imagine very dangerous if not raised properly. Kato was a 125lb dog, so he was quite a handful. My wife actually refused to walk him though she loved him deerly. My only issue was when I was walking him sometimes and if he saw a another dog before I did he would try to bolt. I would have to basically lift him off the ground by his neck to slow him down. Hanging there you could still see the fire in his eyes. Over the 11 years I had him, that was my only real dislike. Other than that, he was a great, loyal dog.

I now have a Toy Terrior/Beagle mix, this guy is way more a PITA but at least he doesn't scare anyone. . Barks and barks.

David