Michael Vicks Dogs - One Year Later

[Not Afraid]

Ummmm, I think he missed a point or two along the way.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Who cares, it's just Pit Bulls, right? (warning, semi-graphic descriptions ahead)

[Not Afraid]

Another really good, more recent follow up article about the dogs.

[bewitched]

Great Article, NA!

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

but the fact remains that these things exist because of their appeal to a certain type of irresponsible, violence loving person.

I agree with you 100%. However...that is hardly the breed's fault. Pitbulls have been around since the 19th century and usually refer to either purebred Staffordshire Bull Terriers/American Staffordshire Terriers or a dog that is mixed with one of these breeds. From early on, the breeds were well known to be very people friendly:

Dog fighting, which could be carried out under clandestine measures, blossomed. Since Bulldogs proved too ponderous and uninterested in dog fighting, the Bulldogs were crossed with English White and Black and Tan Terriers. They were also bred to be intelligent and level-headed during fights and remain non-aggressive toward their handlers. Part of the standard for organized dog-fighting required that the match referee who is unacquainted with the dog be able to enter the ring, pick up a dog while it was engaged in a fight, and get the respective owner to carry it out of the ring without being bitten. Dogs that bit the referee were culled.

As a result, Victorian fighting dogs (Staffordshire Bull Terriers and, though less commonly used as fighters, English Bull Terriers) generally had stable temperaments and were commonly kept in the home by the gambling men who owned them.

What I agree with is it is many of the people own these dogs and breed them with no regard to temperament (they just want a "cool" or "badass" dog) are irresponsible and often drawn to violence. They revel in their dog's ability to be vicious and often foster that ability.

I would (even with an 8yo child) own a "pitbull" that I knew to be well bred, by people who care about the breeds and know what they are doing with not an ounce of trepidation. On the other hand, Staffies are "advanced" dogs and I am what I would call a very experienced dog person...there are many breeds, no matter how well bred that someone who is inexperienced with dogs and/or has a submissive personality has no business owning. It is not the pitbull as a breed that concerns me, it is the individual pitbulls that come (at some point in their lives) from irresponsible fvcktards who have no business being near these animals.

In short, there are, unfortunately, some "bad" dogs (of all breeds) out there, but generally it's what dog people say all of the time about all "bad" dogs (because it's true), it is rarely the dog that is the problem (although that is the unfortunate, and eventual, outcome), it's the owners who are the problem.

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm not sure that not biting the dominant owner or the similarly dominant grown-up male referee qualifies as being people friendly.

Bewitched, your post surprises me because it sounds perilously close to a lot of the junk one hears from pit bull owners whose dogs have just attacked someone: "I can kick my dog's ass, so I'm shocked that it attacked a small child in the neighborhood."

[Morrigoon]

Bewitched:

I would have believed that too, but for the Pit mix my mom fostered with her rescue group. The dog was still a puppy when rescued. She had "Lucky" for several months, so basically "raised" him. Very sweet temperament.

... Until he killed a puppy she was also fostering.

Actually, there were signs of his aggression problem earlier, as he got into a couple fights with her beagle that resulted in a trip to the vet and stitches. But because of Daisy's personality, we assumed she'd picked the fight.

My point is, the pitbull danger is nature, NOT nurture. Even if it can be aggravated by nurture, they have innate aggression issues which you might not even be aware of most of the time because they're usually super sweet. But pits can turn ON A DIME.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Bewitched, your post surprises me because it sounds perilously close to a lot of the junk one hears from pit bull owners whose dogs have just attacked someone: "I can kick my dog's ass, so I'm shocked that it attacked a small child in the neighborhood."

I in no way would claim that I can kick a pitbull's ass. That is not at all what I mean. Dogs are pack animals. The leaders of the pack don't lead by violence. They lead with calmness, assertiveness and simple discipline when needed. There are many people who love and own dogs who are not calm and assertive or "dominant" personalities. And there are some dogs who "need" a leader and will fill that role if need be. These type of people have no business owning these types of "advanced" dogs. Kicking a dog's ass does NOT make someone a leader-- it makes them an asshole who has no business owning a dog. When a dog bites, there can be many reasons behind it. When a dog "attacks" it is almost always due to the owners inability to control the dog.

Like you, I don't buy that it was a wonderful dog who did nothing wrong...ever. There were signs, maybe subtle...but there were signs. Maybe a slight growl when the dog was petted while eating. Maybe a rumbling in its throat when a child went past on a skateboard...to an inexperienced person with an advanced dog, this is grumpy day or such. Dogs escalate their behavior. They growl at another dog to see if you will do anything, they snap at another dog...whatever. The poblem with pits and Rotties and Dobermans (and other like dogs) is they poke a little and then they explode. This is the reason that many rescue groups won't take pits in particular and will refer to a pit specific rescue; these dogs need to be handled by someone experienced with the breed.

So don't misunderstand me. I would never excuse the owner of a dog that mauled anyone; the dog has only become what the owner has made (or allowed) him to be. And as heartbreaking as I find it to be, the only acceptable solution is to put a dog like that down. Again, for this I blame the owner.

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Bewitched:

I would have believed that too, but for the Pit mix my mom fostered with her rescue group. The dog was still a puppy when rescued. She had "Lucky" for several months, so basically "raised" him. Very sweet temperament.

... Until he killed a puppy she was also fostering.

Actually, there were signs of his aggression problem earlier, as he got into a couple fights with her beagle that resulted in a trip to the vet and stitches. But because of Daisy's personality, we assumed she'd picked the fight.

My point is, the pitbull danger is nature, NOT nurture. Even if it can be aggravated by nurture, they have innate aggression issues which you might not even be aware of most of the time because they're usually super sweet. But pits can turn ON A DIME.

An excellent example of an "advanced" dog "escalating" behavior to see if (and when) the pack leader will reassert control (and who knows how many growls and snaps went on before that went unnoticed or were explained away). The pitbull problem is NOT nature except insofar as people have totally lost perspective and left out the "temperament" part of the equation in breeding (kind of like 2 people with a genetic disease having a child and then being surprised that the child has the same genetic disease*). Instead of breeding for calmness of temperament, people are breeding the "badass" factor. That is why, as I stated, I would never own a pit of unknown lineage with my 8 yo child around. I would however, not hesitate to have a well bred Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier (which is what pits generally are-- that or a mix with one of the 2) in my home.

And any dog can turn, "on a DIME". You just don't hear on CNN about the miniature poodle who bit its owner several times after being such a "sweet" dog for so many years.




*I am only stating this as an example, not as an opening for a eugenics argument and/or a commentary on my feelings, or lack thereof, regarding this statement.

[Morrigoon]

Okay, I see your argument there. I still won't ever have a Staffordshire in my family, but I can see why you feel comfortable doing so.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Okay, I see your argument there. I still won't ever have a Staffordshire in my family, but I can see why you feel comfortable doing so.

And I totally respect and appreciate anyone who takes the time to know what kind of dog fits with their lifestyle and personality. , in my dog loving book for being responsible. Most dogs (pits in particular) end up in shelters/rescues because people don't take the time to see what kind of dog fits them (as opposed to the drug dealer wannabe down the street ).

In any case, I don't see myself actually owning a Staffie anytime soon. We are at 4 dogs (including our Rat Terrier foster* who is driving me insane with his terrier personality :deep calming breaths: ) which is 2 past my personal limit. (We also have a Doberman/Lab mix, a Standard Poodle and a Setter/Lab mix). And frankly, even though I wouldn't refuse a Staffie a home (okay, right now I would ), it is not a breed I would actively seek out as they don't rank very highly for me personally (not for temperament issues, mind you). (I adore Standard Poodles (great with kids!) and would love someday to have a Borzoi.)



*If anyone wants a poorly dog and people socialized (we're working on that!), fearful (that too), fear peeing :sigh:, likely former puppy mill resident, yet very sweet (in spite of everything) and cute Rat Terrier; please let me know. I might have the perfect dog for you!

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Okay, I see your argument there. I still won't ever have a Staffordshire in my family, but I can see why you feel comfortable doing so.

Even if one would feel comfortable having, say, a non-neutered male in heat in your own home while a female in heat was over the back fence, the other relevant question is whether it's appropriate to make your neighbors nervous by owning such an animal.

If my neighbor told me that his hobby was making bombs in the basement, I would not be comforted by his professions of mature expertise in the matter. I note that in recent attacks, the idiotic statements by the owners reflect the belief that the victims and/or those horrified by the attacks were insufficiently aficion on the subject of dangerous dogs. E.g., "What is she complaining about? She knew his triggers." and "What's the fuss? It's not as if he locked his jaws."