Pit bull attack

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

Man (woman?) ...you're really waering me out ....
No matter how many times you ask, my answer is going to stay the same.
I am certainly NOT going to justify the pitbull as a breed according to your bullet points.
Furthermore, justifying the right to live of any breed, as you suggested, would quickly lead down a slippery slope.

You are therefore refusing to answer the question and not participating in a thred. Are you a politician? I explained that the "thin edge of the wedge" arguement is pointless as nobody said ban all dogs. Your arguement is against a fictious situation that you are making up. If you want to protect a certain bred protect it on it's grounds and not a 1984 situation you think may be at some point possible.

peasant wrote:

Take your beloved Dachshund for example:
Badgers (= Dachs in german) are a protected species and cannot be hunted any more ..therefore your badger-dog is jobless, useless, pointless.

Common ignorance and mistranslation so go get some education there. For starters they have been around a lot longer than the german language.

peasant wrote:

It has been shown in statistics that Dachshunds can kill people, therefore they are deemed dangerous and banned forthwith.

I am perfectly aware of that but they aren't responsible 60% of any attacks. I have never siad they are harmless. I have never said education isn't required. When Daushound start attacking adults, being used in dog fights and hardmen start using them as a threat I'll look at it then. Tanks are banned for road use so it is a matter of time before the moped is banned argument if your arguement is applied to another situations

peasant wrote:

How would you like that? and furthermore, how could you possibly argue against that?

See above and narrow your view to the point instead of constantly repeating your same views again and again and again etc...

peasant wrote:

Whether you like that answer not ...this is it.

It isn't an answer it's avoiding the question.
eg Q: What is the colour of the sky? A:The economic pressures have forced house prices up. Question not answered!!!!
And it is not the only one you keep avoiding. What makes you know better than experts? How many dogs have you handled? How do you know that PB attacks are reported more? etc...

peasant wrote:

Please, please don't ask me again, ok? :cool:

No, if you are going to run around making wild furture prediction and statements of opinion without any basis of fact at least you need to answer direct questions when asked otherwise you are just trolling. Why allow the breed?

aare

peasant wrote:

aare
I agree with you on all of the above and would like to add a notional database on who owns which dog (all dogs to be tattooed or chipped)

It's an idea too...but tattooing and chipping are a seperate discussion because there are arguments for and against, not just because both are expensive, also because stolen dogs with tattoos get the tattoos cut off, stolen dogs with chips get the chips dug out...

A third option is a numbered tag. But as only about 20% of dogs coming into the pounds have collars, and hardly any have tags (though of the few reclaimed, many had both when they left home) I'm not sure that bird would fly too well either?

peasant wrote:

Why do you think that every offenders dog would automatically need to be impounded and finally killed.

Under existing laws, any dog that has significantly bitten either a person or another dog, or worried stock is impounded either for destruction or pending a court case.

Sadly this is right. Because, except in very rare circumstances, that dog IS going to attack again

peasant wrote:

First of all, one could also impound an offenders TV or car if they don't hand over money

See above, the dogs aren't impounded for money, but to prevent a recurrance of the offence, whether committed by the dog (biting) or to the dog (cruelty and neglect).

peasant wrote:

and secondly, in a more regulated "market" with strict breeding controls there would be far less dogs, so dogs that end up in the pound for whatever reason needn't be killed but could be re-homed.

Don't count on it.

At present, along with all the unwanted dogs that are taken to vets (and worse) to be destroyed (including greyhounds) the pounds consider they are doing well if they can find home for anything near 50% of the dogs.

In tandem with regulation you need to actively encourage responsible ownership. One example of that being to encourage dog loving old folk, who are too worried about what will happen to a dog that outlives them to have another dog, to take on older dogs.

peasant wrote:

and on a side note: I can see that morningstar is not gonna budge from his/her question, but i thought at least you would accept my answer

...and if you ever give one I will

peasant wrote:

forgotten all about the appearance of Yorkies in the "death by dog-Statistics", have we?

Oh no...and don't YOU forget it either *fiendish-chortles-they-don't-got-a-smilie-for*

aare

nesf wrote:

I agree. I wasn't saying that there should be a clampdown by a nanny state. Just a different look taken at educating owners better etc.

I haven't slept, apologies if I'm coming across badly.

I should threaten to turn the Yorkies on people more often!

It WORKS

nesf

aare wrote:

I should threaten to turn the Yorkies on people more often!

It WORKS

If only I had my purebred golden retriever with me...

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

aare


and on a side note: I can see that morningstar is not gonna budge from his/her question, but i thought at least you would accept my answer

It's not one question it's all questions and your inability to actually stick to a point with out ranting. I can't imagine how you could go through any education system without the ability to answer a question.

peasant

otherwise you are just trolling

Yeah, right ...

That's it MorningStar ..I've had enough.
whether my answer is acceptable to you or not ...I couldn't care less any more..

(And don't lecture me on german and try to get your facts right as well , after all you're breeding a german breed, try google under Dackel, Teckel, and then try Dachs)

peasant

aare

The folloeing needs to happen;

1) a law that defines cruelty to animals and animal rights and a state body that inforces it

2) a law that regulates breeding and trading and sets up minimum requirements

3) a working dog / owner register

4) general education on good dogkeeping in accordance with the above laws.

5) enforcement of aninmal rights and cruelty laws down to the level of the individual dog owner. (by the state)

Steps one two and three will reduce the number of "new" dogs being produced to such a level that the sysyem should be able to cope withthe "old" ones without having to kill them all.

It should be a significant improvement on what we have now

And if cruelty and animal rights are defined correctly, all the "dangerous dog" issues could be dealt with in one swoop, no seperate law would be needed.

It is cruel to train a dog to attack other dogs or people, because it can only be done via cruel methods.

aare

peasant wrote:

aare

The folloeing needs to happen;

1) a law that defines cruelty to animals and animal rights and a state body that inforces it

2) a law that regulates breeding and trading and sets up minimum requirements

3) a working dog / owner register

4) general education on good dogkeeping in accordance with the above laws.

5) enforcement of aninmal rights and cruelty laws down to the level of the individual dog owner. (by the state)

This is all good as long as we take it for granted that all standards are arrived at by recognised and qualified professionals NOT animal rights/welfare self appointees.

peasant wrote:

Steps one two and three will reduce the number of "new" dogs being produced to such a level that the sysyem should be able to cope withthe "old" ones without having to kill them all.

Sadly there is no guarantee that will happen. So there is really a need for a two tier system of impounding.

First line:

Dog Pounds with 5 day stays for all including surrenders (that can currently be destroyed immediately). A longer stay is unmanageable in terms of disease. Put simply, one diseased dog can infect too many for every day that passes.

Second Line:

Longer stay (perhaps 3 months?), state owned rehoming centres with quarantine kennels for those dogs that have just come from the pound and mandatory spay/neutering. Any unhomed dogs to be offered free of charge to licenced and regulated Animal Rescues prior to destruction.

peasant wrote:

It should be a significant improvement on what we have now

Aye

peasant wrote:

And if cruelty and animal rights are defined correctly, all the "dangerous dog" issues could be dealt with in one swoop, no seperate law would be needed.

Sure, because the breeding and ownership of all dangerous dog breeds could be strictly regulated and subject to stringent conditions.

peasant wrote:

It is cruel to train a dog to attack other dogs or people, because it can only be done via cruel methods.

We really must meet up for a few hands of "Nature vs Nurture" on the humanities board some day...but in the meanwhile, for the record, I believe both have considerable influence on any living creature...

...However...PUH-LEASE don't try to persuade an Irish Wolfhound to round up sheep...he'll only graze with 'em...though a Poodle might do a pretty mean "Babe emulation mode"...it's in the breeding you see...

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

Yeah, right ...

That's it MorningStar ..I've had enough.
whether my answer is acceptable to you or not ...I couldn't care less any more..

You never answered the question

peasant

ok, MorningStar ...

...one last ditch attempt, a theoretical excercise if you like. Please bear with me while i put the shoe on the other foot.

Lets assume that there is a terrible tragedy tomorrow. A family Dachshund attacks a little toddler and kills the poor child by biting it right in the throat.
(entirely possible, has happened before)

There is a nationwide uproar and media frenzy, all the gorey details, crying family members, widespread disgust and condemnation all over the telly and the papers

Some self -professed "experts" unearth the fact that Dachshunds were originally bred to hunt down badgers and kill them in their burrows.

This gets spread all over the media, including all sorts of facts, tales and horror stories what kind of fearsome, strong and determined animals badgers really are.

On every TV programme, in every paper and on every internet platform the conclusion is, that in order to fight badgers, the Dachshund really is one ferocious, determined killing machine, with immensly strong jaws and needle sharp teeth that kill instantly. Furthermore, it has been determined that the Dachshund doesn't feel any pain, otherwise it would be unable to fight and kill an animal as ferocoius as the badger.
There is no place at all for an animal like that in the bosom of a family.

After a lot of media pressure, "common sense" prevails and a ban on Dachshunds is enforced.

Now, there you are, MorningStar ...a Dachshund breeder.

Please give us your reasons why we should have Dachshunds ...
(and the answer(s) that the allegations are mostly wrong, the owner was to blame, and that a ban isn't fair don't count. And we are also not interested in the fact that other breeds could be equally or more dangerous)

peasant

aare

And if cruelty and animal rights are defined correctly, all the "dangerous dog" issues could be dealt with in one swoop, no seperate law would be needed.
Sure, because the breeding and ownership of all dangerous dog breeds could be strictly regulated and subject to stringent conditions.

Yes, there is that ...plus the fact that even pitbulls need to be beaten into the habit of attacking other dogs willy-nilly or even on command.

So, no need for a breed ban !!

MorningStar

Peasant
Lets get something straight I don't want to hear another made up story by you. I understand perfectly well what you are trying to say. It still does not answer the question. It is hypothetical situation the current dangers of pit bulls is due to the type of owner attracted to them and all the potential dangers of the dog.
I also said I DID bred dogs not that I still do it. You are making wild assumption, predictions and statements. The exact same as mine that daschunds name does not mean badger dog. (so you know they were also called rabbit dog and Tekel, date back to the pyramids. The hunting they were used for was not to kill the badger but to hunt it for it's master, very similar to a Jack Russell)You did actually know and understand what was said so you probably understand what a question is and what an answer to a question is. Answering a question with a question is not an answer either. There have been more than one reason not to have PBs yet you can't come up with one for allowing them. The balance you are bringing to the table is not balance just wild statement,story, prediction and opinion. THere are a ton of questions you ignored

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

And if cruelty and animal rights are defined correctly, all the "dangerous dog" issues could be dealt with in one swoop, no seperate law would be needed.

It is cruel to train a dog to attack other dogs or people, because it can only be done via cruel methods.

This is not true dogs do not have to be treated cruel to attack other dogs or people. Protective nature of dogs will kick you actually need to train it out of them. If you know better how do you know?How many dogs have you trained?* I know from my experience of over 100 dogs.

* This indicates a question it has been asked before in other forms to you directly

peasant

Ahhh, now, MorningStar ...you really disappoint me.

You are such an expert on Dachshunds (Teckel is northern German for the southern German Dackel for the proper German Dachshund, by the way , glaub' mir) ,you do or did breed them, so you know them inside out, all their good sides, their lovable traits.

Come on now, surely you could enlighten us all and give us just one (one little inzy-bitzy) reason why we should not ban Dachshunds if they were ever threatened with a ban like in the above scenario.

If you do, i will also give you an answer as to why we should have pitbulls.

but remember the rules:
the answer(s) that the allegations are mostly wrong, the owner was to blame, and that a ban isn't fair don't count. And we are also not interested in the fact that other breeds could be equally or more dangerous

Come on now ...give us an answer

Why should we have Dachshunds in a situation as described above?

answer me mine and I'll answer you yours

peasant

Why we need pitbulls

Because they are innocent animals.

We humans, the top dogs, the so-called crown of creation, we made them. Bred them to excel as fighters, trained them to be strong and fearsome.

Sure, we could just ban them and be done with them. But that wouldn’t change a thing. Soon we would find another innocent animal to breed into a fighter, to train to be a killer and the circle would start again, over and over.

We need pitbulls to remind us of where we were going wrong.
We need pitbulls to ask of us daily the question: Why did we do this to an innocent animal?

Because we could, that’s why. Because we have not enough moral values to stop this wrongdoing from happening.

We need pitbulls to keep the discussion going, to realise our wrongs and make them right.
To realise that innocent animals have the same rights as we do.

Once we realise that, we won’t need them anymore.
Once that time comes we will find that they won’t be there anymore either. Not the pitbull we knew and created, there will be just another dog, healthy, well bred, well adjusted. And it will be the same delight to us as all its cousins.

That’s why we need pitbulls now.

MorningStar

I gave you a format for a reason. You are still not answering the question. Which remains why allow the breed?
And at best your description of "need" is an idealogy with little merits in the real world or logic. There is more need for the small poxes virus than these dogs. Innocent animals don't have the right to breed in this country and also do not suffer by not being given the right. In fact the breed probably suffer more as a result of being allowed breed as do other animals and people.

peasant

MorningStar

Could you be a pitbull in disguise? You just won't let go ...

I gave you all the answers i have. There are no more.

I suggest you read them again and then engage your brain ..then you just might realise that i have answered your question several times.

That you don't like my answer is not MY problem.
That you are too narrow minded to realise the importance of such things like moral responsibility and values on the other hand is your problem.

Small minded, self-righteous, self-appointed "experts" like you are part of the reason and of the explanation of the "dangerous dog" problem in the first place.

Your utterances about your alleged experience of dog training are living proof of that.

Now stop annoying me and answer the Dachshund question instead.

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

MorningStar

Could you be a pitbull in disguise? You just won't let go ...

I gave you all the answers i have.

So you can't answer the question asked to you and make up your own questions that suit you. I started this thread about an incident that happened to me you are hijacked it with your opinion without any fact. YOu are welcome to leave

peasant

As long as you don't show a bit of wit and intelligence and answer the Dachshund question, you have no right to refuse me this thread.

Come on ...impress us all with your sparkling intellect.

Or are you just sulking now because you meant to start a "ban the pitbull campaign" from this platform and I spoiled your plans ?

peasant

aare wrote:

We really must meet up for a few hands of "Nature vs Nurture" on the humanities board some day...but in the meanwhile, for the record, I believe both have considerable influence on any living creature...

...However...PUH-LEASE don't try to persuade an Irish Wolfhound to round up sheep...he'll only graze with 'em...though a Poodle might do a pretty mean "Babe emulation mode"...it's in the breeding you see...

Am i to read into that, that you share MorningStars belief that dogs attack other dogs and people by nature?

If so, you are incorrect.

First let me define "attack": Dogs, like all animals and humans will attack or rather fight back in self defence. The trigger/ trigger level for this kind of attack is different for an attack on a dog or an attack on a human.

Fur the purpose of the following explanations lets please define "attack" as an unprovoced attack, not in self defence.

A) Attacks between dogs:

Dogs, from wolf onwards, have always been pack animals. They have a highly sophisticated social order in order to prevent fighting within the pack. Properly raised and socialised dogs know this social order and all its rules and the special "sign language" that comes with it. Such dogs settle their differences by ritualistic behaviour and only on very rare occasions do fights brake out ....only ever AFTER the ritual has failed to offer a solution. 99% of these fights are nothing more than short brawls, no serious harm is done. The few fights were actual harm is done signify a breakdown of the social order and only happen in exceptional circumstances like death of the leader or entry of a new pack member for example.
Wild or semi-wild dogs living in a pack do not attack (see definition) each other ...otherwise the species would not have survived.

Now we take a look at all the pooches that live with us. First of all, their "pack" is widely different. In most cases it consists of humans only, in rarer occasions there is another (or more) dogs present to practise the social ritual with. If these dogs have been raised and socialised properly, usually there is no problem ...if not, things get difficult.
Dogs by nature are territorial and defend their territory. Now, in any normal town on any given day, umpteen dogs get dragged through each others territory on a lead (or without). If these dogs meet, several things can happen: They both are properly socialised and speak "dog" ...they sort out the situation with a few glances and stances and that is that. Same situation while being dragged on on a lead and unable to communicate properly and you get the usual picture of two dogs straining at their lead making all sorts of more or less threatening noises. One on one off-lead makes it more complicated. But if one of the involved parties has not been socialised properly and doesn't "speak dog" ...a fight or even an attack can not be ruled out. If previous anti-social behaviour has been reinforced or left uncorrected by the owner an attack is most likely. If anti-social behaviour gets constantly reinforced or praised, an attack WILL happen.

attacks on humans
humans have domesticated dogs for thousands and thousands of generations (of dogs). Dogs that attacked humans were killed. Only "friendly" dogs were allowed to breed. It is safe to say, that thousands of generations later dogs are human-friendly. They do not attack (see definition) people. Indeed 90 % of dogs are always happy to meet new people and the other 10% just don't care.
Take a look at the so called "Schutzhund" (=protection dog). These dogs that are made to attack people 's arms or other body parts ...we've all seen the pictures. The so called figurants (bite victims) wear this bite sleeve ...but not for protection. No, the dog has been prevoiusly trained (mostly by questionable methods) to attack this sleeve all on its own. Once they perform this to their owners satisfaction and with enough aggression they then get trained (by even more questionable methods, all of them involving force) to attack the sleeve whilst on a person. The idea being that once trained sufficiently, that the dog will ultimately attack a person even without sleeve on command. But sometimes even the most beaten and mistreated "schutzhunds" still refuse.

"classic" fighting and guard dogs, by the way, are totally unsuitable for this "sport". They are far to people tolerant or have a far to high trigger level before they get "sufficiently aggressive". Instead herding type dogs are used, who for generations have been bred to be espcially responsive to human commands and are therefore more "mallable". And even these poor creatures have to be beaten and electroshocked into attacking people.

The above dogs are of course properly socialised, because outside the Schutzhund "sport" or without the command being given, they are supposed to function normally in the outside world. They are therefore "broken" animals ...first they learn one thing, then they get trained the opposite ...but that is a different matter for another topic.

Dogs that have not been socialised properly, that have spent their forming weeks in solitary confinement without any human contact (i.e. lots of puppy-farm puppies, mistreated dogs, cruelty cases) lack posotive forming experiences with people. In the worst case scenario the become fear ridden aggressive-defensive biting machines ...in most cases their generation long human friendly disposition still comes good and they end up being normal dogs ...given they end up with an understanding and knowledgeable owner. Those who don't are in the best case shy and in the worst unpredictable.

To conclude:
Dogs with good upbringing and proper socialisation do not attack (see definition), neither other dogs nor humans.

aare

peasant wrote:

aare

Yes, there is that ...plus the fact that even pitbulls need to be beaten into the habit of attacking other dogs willy-nilly or even on command.

So, no need for a breed ban !!

'fraid that's only on TV, in real life the instinct is born into most of them...

That's just the way it is...

(I thought we were going to do "Nature vs Nurture more generically on the Humanities board some day?)

peasant

That's just the way it is...

No, it isn't :cool: Please do not confuse instinct with modified behaviour patterns. A well adjusted, socialised dog will not attack willy-nilly. It might react to provocation or defend itself, but it does not know the concept of random violence.

Only a dog that has come into contact with a twisted human mind can be made capable of that ...usually by changing its very nature through force, cruelty, neglect and other such niceties.

Afterthought:
Maybe I should explain "socialised" in the context of dogs?
It doesn't mean having been brought for a few pints down the local , but, in their formative weeks, to have been brought up in an intact and functioning pack or group of dogs, introduced to well meaning and caring, nurturing humans and all the environmental oddities like hoovers, passing cars, other house pets, noise, open space, enclosed spaces ,etc, etc ...

To have been familiarised with the world that is going to be around them, in other words. Not neglecting to give them an opportunity to learn and practise to "speak dog" properly from their parents, siblings and other unrelated dogs.
Nothing to do with training ...that comes later. At that stage they learn all by themselves by just soaking everything up like a spongue.

Those formative weeks last from birth to about the 12th week. Then socializing starts to fizzle out and training begins.

(I thought we were going to do "Nature vs Nurture more generically on the Humanities board some day?)

The humanities board?
I'm neglecting work and other things as it is ...
you don't know how slowly I type ...

aare

Ah now you aren't even TRYING, look at this:

peasant wrote:

A well adjusted, socialised dog will not attack willy-nilly.

First you say a dog has to be trained to attack, THEN you say it has to be trained not to attack...that's a direct contradiction.

What are you postulating it's inherent nature to be?

Catatonic?

And this is not an isolated contradiction, more like an habit, behold:

peasant wrote:

Only "friendly" dogs were allowed to breed. It is safe to say, that thousands of generations later dogs are human-friendly. They do not attack (see definition) people.

peasant wrote:

herding type dogs are used, who for generations have been bred to be espcially responsive to human commands and are therefore more "mallable".

...and yet you insist that dogs which are bred for hundreds of years just to fight and attack do not innately fight and attack???

Hmmmmmmm

Curious logic...

peasant wrote:

Am i to read into that, that you share MorningStars belief that dogs attack other dogs and people by nature?

I share Morningstar's belief that dogs (such as pit bulls) bred specifically to attack other dogs most usually do so by nature, mostly because all my personal experience of dogs would accord with that.

MorningStar

The simple reason for me not answering that question is because you aren't answering any questions put to you. To answer a question with a a question is is the same avoidence you continue with. You will most likely use any logic I say for a any other bred and apply it to a PB becuase after your repeated efforts of an answer you are unable to come up with any logic or reason.
Why not answer all the question put to you. There two logical assumption to made about you:
1) You are trolling
2) You are unable to talk with any knowledge or logic on a subject.

Unless you are willing to answer the questions put to you I am going to ignore you as I see no worth in your input.

peasant

aare wrote:

Ah now you aren't even TRYING, look at this:



First you say a dog has to be trained to attack, THEN you say it has to be trained not to attack...that's a direct contradiction.

What are you postulating it's inherent nature to be?

Catatonic?

And this is not an isolated contradiction, more like an habit, behold:





...and yet you insist that dogs which are bred for hundreds of years just to fight and attack do not innately fight and attack???

Hmmmmmmm

Curious logic...



I share Morningstar's belief that dogs (such as pit bulls) bred specifically to attack other dogs most usually do so by nature, mostly because all my personal experience of dogs would accord with that.

aare

that is a misunderstanding, maybe I didn't make myself quite clear ...i'll try again ...

All dogs, not unlike Konrad Lorenz's geese, are familiarised and formed with and towards their environment during the first few weeks of their life.

This is called socialisation. The mother-dog, other dogs in the group and (normal) humans do what comes naturally to them with the puppy. They take care of it, nurture it and introduce it to its environement. This is when pups learn to understand their world and not to be afraid of it.
Not socializing a dog properly involves either conscious effort (to keep it from certain things) or just plain neglect and cruelty. Dogs that haven't been socialised will end up being shy at best, aggressive-defensive at worst.

Properly socialised dogs will be free of fear and unprovoced aggression. This makes biological sense, as stress, fear and aggression consume more energy than necessary and are therefore detrimental to survival.

Training is another thing. In "normal" cases this involves potty training, learning to sit, walk on the lead and so on.


Back to pitbulls.
First of all pitbulls were bred to be human-friendly, as they need to be handled by humans, even in the height of a fight. An overly aggressive dog is no use in a dogfight as it can't be controlled. These dogs get culled and not bred. So it is not in their "nature" to attack humans.
In pitbulls that have been socialised properly it is also not in their nature to attack other dogs, as they are biologically programmed to avoid stress and aggression.

So how do you get a pitbull to be a fighting machine?

1) you breed it to be strong and athletic ..that's all you can achieve by breeding
2) you don't socialise it properly. you make especially sure that it has no contact to normal doggy behaviour. you actually try and confront it with aggressive and disturbed dogs only. This will instill a fear of and aggression towards dogs into the growing pup.
3) you then "train" it to channel that fear and agression into attacks, reinforcing aggressive behaviour and punishing typical avoidance behaviour. This is done by brutal methods, constantly keeping the fear and aggression levels of the animal at their peak (as this training isn't easy, a side effect may be that the dog channels its agression on anything ...even humans other than its owner)

So, as you can see, it takes a conscious effort to turn a pitbull into a fighter.


Btw ...any other dog can be subjected to the same regime and become a fighter. Pb's are just "the dog of choice" because they pack the most punch for their size.

this is another reason why a ban on pitbulls would be pointless ...the fighting fraction would just focus their attention on another breed

MorningStar

Aare

Don't bother responding to him he just makes up stuff and doesn't even see when he contradicts himself. I can't see any reason why he claims to know anything about dogs and he won't disclose any other than common sense and personal observation. Old wives tales hold that dubious honour too.

Socialising dogs is fine but dogs have to be shown that the pack is not aggresive towards other packs. Certain people are aggresive towards other people and the dog will pick this up too. The type attaracted to an aggresive bred may well fall into this classification.

Any dogs can and will attack what it sees as prey or enemy it doesn't matter if it is human or not. If a human defends its pet the animal can see it as the enemy too. A child with a doll can be easily seen as enemy holding prey or prey itself. If a dacshunds goes running you can catch it and stop it. Most cases with lethal daschunds were very small children in close quarters as opposed to long chases as they just don't have the speed to catch most things. People under estimate dogs but some breds just can run faster and are stronger than people. I am fully aware now that I put myself at great risk for my dog but at the time my protective nature kicked in as did my other dog that had to be restrained.

Greyhounds were specifically bred to be stupid and social due to the nature of racing and way they were and are kept. Dogs were certainly bred for their natures as were cows which ancestor was apparently very dangerous.

peasant

MorningStar wrote:

....cut ....

Socialising dogs is fine but dogs have to be shown that the pack is not aggresive towards other packs. Certain people are aggresive towards other people and the dog will pick this up too. The type attaracted to an aggresive bred may well fall into this classification.

... cut ...

Thank you, my dear MorningStar, for just underlining my above points :rolleyes:

"Prey" and the so called "prey-drive" is another subject altogether that we haven't even touched on so far. Prey has to bee seen in a different light than (unprovoced) aggression and has nothing to do with fighting dogs other than dogs actually squabbling over "prey" ... be that a bowl of food or a toy.

MorningStar

...

aare

Peasant

First of all, a large part of puppy socialisation consists in "play fighting" so that the pup learns to fight in order to establish his position in any pack hierarchy.

Secondly dogs do not necessarily differentiate between people and dogs, they relate more to "my pack" and "outsiders".

It is basic canine nature to accept their position in a pack, most of the time, until it is time to strive for a little "promotion", but to challenge any outsider.

Pit bulls are bred to enhance those qualities along with an abnormally dominant nature, which means they are constantly inclined to "strive" (aka "fight") for promotion within the pack, in a way that other dogs would not be.

To a Pit Bull his humans are his pack, and he will fight any outsider, until he senses weakness in his human and feels, instinctively, that it is time to dominate him...

...and that is a ticking time bomb that may, or may not go off at any time.

WhiteWashMan

children, learn to accept that there are many views in the world, most of which you will not agree with, and learn how to stop going around in pointless circles with ever increasingly microscopic answers to answer generalist questions.

it doesnt work.

please stop having this pointless argument.