Pit bull attack

MorningStar

Aare
There is no point talking to him as he ignores what suits him and makes up what he wants. He is just trolling or unable to comprehend simple English either way he is not worth engaging as he can't discuss anything. He must think opinion means putting your hands over your ears and going lalalalala louder than the other guy.

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.
Semantics ...while "play fighting" puppies learn several things:
- to play without injuring each other
- the rules and the "language" what is play, what is threatening behaviour
- to communicate
- to control their body

Secondly dogs do not necessarily differentiate between people and dogs, they relate more to "my pack" and "outsiders".
Anyone who keeps more than one dog (as do I) will be able to tell and show you that they do indeed differentiate. They communicate totally differently amongst themselves than to humans. This applies to inside and outside contacts

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.

It is basic canine nature to constantly re-affirm the group structure by social interaction. But this structure is not as hirarchical as many people think. There is actually job sharing going on and the "top dog" doesn't make the decision on everything. He/she has the final say though, if (and only if) he/she insists. In a good group, the "top dog" is the most relaxed of them all.
Coming upon an outsider doesn't necessarily mean confrontation. Most of these cases are settled by ritualistic behaviour and over before any aggression is shown. The better functioning the group is, the less likelyhood of confrontation there is.

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.

"Dominance" is a word invented by humans in order to describe dog behaviour they they usually don't quite understand. As stated above a "pack" or group of dogs is not organised in a static hirarchic structure. Yes, there is a "leader" and there are "underlings", but there is no clear top to bottom structure. some dogs are "responsible" for one thing, some for another. so they don't constantly squabble over position as every dog has their own "job". Yes, they do strive to become "leader" some day, but sheer dominant behaviour won't get them there. While becoming leader is not a democratic process, a candidate still has to show abilities and be good at his/ her "job" in order to prove their "worth". Otherwise simply the strongest bully would become leader, but a pack or group actually needs a multitude of skills and knowledge (where to get food, how exactly to hunt, etc) to survive. Sheer brute force alone wouldn't secure the survival of the pack. Hence the leader of a pack/group is usually strong ...but also experienced, quite "clever" and has good "social skills"

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.

See above on "dominance". But you are right about fighting PB's seeing their humans as their "pack" ...that's because they usually have been actively prevented form socializing with other dogs or are being held as "only" dogs.

As to fighting "outsiders": a fighting pitbull has been trained to do just that, has been given the job of fighting outsiders.

As to sensing weakness in the human: The typical idiot keeping a fighting pitbull is the worst leader imaginable. He constantly bullies his dog, sends it into danger while he just stands back, doesn't allow it any freedom to make its own decisions. His "leadership" is based on fear and force which hide underlying weaknesses. In that situation any dog will sooner or later mount a "revolution" against its weak leader ...espcially a dog that always has to fight his leaders fights for him.

MorningStar

WhiteWashMan wrote:

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.

I am a bit surprised as a mod you would use the term "children" to anybody in a derogatory manner and would not enforce rules about personal abuse that have been broken here. This would not be going round and round if the charter was enforced here. Of course by questioning you I run the risk of being banned

peasant

I think WhiteWashMan is right about that one

... learn how to stop going around in pointless circles with ever increasingly microscopic answers to answer generalist questions.

I for my part have said about all that I CAN say (and that several times over ) so it is probably a good idea to call it a day.

I'd like to thank everybody for their contributions, the passive readers for their attention and MorningStar for his tenacity

See y'all in the next controversial doggy thread

aare

Oh dear peasant,

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

peasant wrote:

It is basic canine nature to constantly re-affirm the group structure by social interaction. But this structure is not as hirarchical as many people think. There is actually job sharing going on and the "top dog" doesn't make the decision on everything. He/she has the final say though, if (and only if) he/she insists. In a good group, the "top dog" is the most relaxed of them all.
Coming upon an outsider doesn't necessarily mean confrontation. Most of these cases are settled by ritualistic behaviour and over before any aggression is shown. The better functioning the group is, the less likelyhood of confrontation there is.

You are getting it all mixed up with HUMAN group behavior!

Too many people make the mistake of giving dogs human attributes.

Dogs are different, much more basic.

In a more natural state a pack is only peaceful if the alpha has no challengers close in size and strength. Which is why only much weaker males are tolerated within the pack serious challengers are either run off or killed.

peasant

i know, i know ...i said i'd stop ...

just to answer on that last point by aare ...and then i'll stop ...promise!


The model of the strictly hirarchical pecking order in dog packs wasn't actually developed by observeing dog packs but wolf packs.

And not even wolf packs in the wild, but wolf packs in captivity. That means the wolves were all stuck with each other, had nowhere to go, were outside their natural environment and hence under some severe stress.

In this situation the pack has no other choice than act strictly hirarchical and aggressively. Every member had to have its exact place and not move an inch in order to avoid conflict.

Latest resaerch on wild wolf packs shows that the packs are actually much more dynamic, strong leadership contenders leave on their own account if they see no chance of an immediate takeover. And "job sharing" does take place.

But we are not talking about wolves ...we are talking about domesticated dogs who live an easy life. In a properly sorted group of dogs, as quite a few of us may have at home, only one thing is important. That the human is the boss and accepted as such. Close observation of the dogs will then reveal that their "hirarchy" is quite fluent. Depending on the task at hand, different dogs may be the "responsible" one for that task. Older dogs may allow younger dogs opportunities to learn and practise their skills. When playing, older or more experienced dogs have no "problems" with letting the "underling" win occasionally ...and so on and so on

please note the " " around all the "human" words ...but it is very difficult to explain dog behaviour outside human terms without getting a mile long answer ...no time for that. But I am perfectly aware that my dogs are dogs and i treat them as such ...not as humans.

Sin e

MorningStar

aare wrote:

Oh dear peasant,

You really don't know what you are talking about do you?

You are right there. I have had a lot of handling with large numbers of dogs (greyhounds are kept in large groups) Packs are very different to what he has discribed and exist in household dogs. I have experience introducing a new dog into a pack and it can be very difficult. Sometimes it is the pack and sometimes it is the dog. Strangely the daschunds ran the packs which was handy.

peasant

MorningStar wrote:

You are right there. I have had a lot of handling with large numbers of dogs (greyhounds are kept in large groups) Packs are very different to what he has discribed and exist in household dogs. I have experience introducing a new dog into a pack and it can be very difficult. Sometimes it is the pack and sometimes it is the dog. Strangely the daschunds ran the packs which was handy.

sorry ....me .....again .........

But i just can't this much ignorance let go without a comment:

Sometimes it is the pack and sometimes it is the dog

Hellooo??

Has it ever dawned on you, that every single time it was YOU ...not the dog ...not the pack ...you, their leader ?

You cant just go and shove a new dog willy-nilly into an existing group without prior evaluation. What did you sort them by? size? colour? or just available kennel space?

But what can one expect from someone who calls the supposedly large amounts of greyhounds that he's had such a wealth of experience with "bred for stupidity"?

Oh no, hang on ...you didn't lead them at all ...sorry ...you let the Dachshunds do that.

A wise choice, methinks :cool:

aare

Humans as leaders???

Why?

peasant wrote:

But what can one expect from someone who calls the supposedly large amounts of greyhounds that he's had such a wealth of experience with "bred for stupidity"?

Lots of people think that...until they realise just HOW much they have been ripped off for by these "dumb" beasts

Greyhounds are NOT stupid, but they don't mind if you think they are, it's SO much easier to buy you and sell you that way.

Seriously, I suspect people think greyhounds are stupid because, in confined spaces, when they are not running, they can be incredibly clumsey.

It's just because they are so elongated, including tails.

Also, people sometimes mistake gentleness and laid-backness for stupidity, and the greyhound has plenty of both.

nesf

aare wrote:

You are getting it all mixed up with HUMAN group behavior!

Too many people make the mistake of giving dogs human attributes.

Dogs are different, much more basic.

In a more natural state a pack is only peaceful if the alpha has no challengers close in size and strength. Which is why only much weaker males are tolerated within the pack serious challengers are either run off or killed.

I'd argue that you can learn a lot about some human behaviour by looking at any social animal's behaviour. You can see the "baser" impulses and instincts there.

Wolf pack structure is interesting to read about for this, since wild dog packs haven't much research on them done and "kept" packs have human influences added to the mix.

There's also the interesting point (and it might have been brought up before now, but I haven't spotted it) that some breeds need to be "socialised" when young to avoid many behavioural issues, especially regarding other dogs. Other breeds don't seem to be as effected by it.

aare

nesf wrote:

I'd argue that you can learn a lot about some human behaviour by looking at any social animal's behaviour. You can see the "baser" impulses and instincts there.

Too true, a group dynamic is a group dynamic at root...human beings just got more sophisticated at it, especially the nastiest bits.

The trouble comes when people try to attribute the sophistication to the animals as well.

nesf wrote:

There's also the interesting point (and it might have been brought up before now, but I haven't spotted it) that some breeds need to be "socialised" when young to avoid many behavioural issues, especially regarding other dogs. Other breeds don't seem to be as effected by it.

Could it be that those "behavioural issues" are inbred so?

peasant

sorry for still not stopping ...but ye keep dragging me back into this ...

Originally Posted by nesf
There's also the interesting point (and it might have been brought up before now, but I haven't spotted it) that some breeds need to be "socialised" when young to avoid many behavioural issues, especially regarding other dogs. Other breeds don't seem to be as effected by it.



Could it be that those "behavioural issues" are inbred so?

first ...yes nesf ...the socialising was only one of the issues that i repaeted over and over and over ...but never mind ...the thread is indeed a long one.

second ...not SOME breeds need to be socialised ...ALL DOGS do ..breed or mix

third ...aare ...wrong end of the stick ... dogs are by nature social animals, "designed" to live in groups rather than fend on their own. So all dogs go through a phase in the early weeks of their life when they do nothing else but "absorb" ...doggy behaviour, doggy "language" , doggy rituals, etc. They are not born with an instinctive set of behavioral mannerisms or patterns, instead they "absorb" the behaviour patterns of their group in order to fit in perfectly ..which they end up doing.

We humans have used this fact to our advantage in that we include ourselves and our rules and our environment into the "absorption" process and thus become acceptable social partners for the dog(s). Through training later on we then become their leaders (at least we would like to )

note ...can somebody please let me know the proper scientific name for "absorb" ...i just can't think of it, thx

nesf

I was saying that some breeds won't display behavioural problems from lack of socialisation in their youth. All dogs should have canine company but it's not always the case.

aare wrote:

Could it be that those "behavioural issues" are inbred so?

Different breeds have different preferances and patters socially. Golden Retrievers for instance need a lot of company or they become very unhappy. Some breeds of terrier really couldn't care less.

The behavioural issues are more a product of their social needs being neglected in this case. But, you're right, different breeds have totally different needs and temperaments. Thus they have certain issues.

But quite a few of these issues aren't fixed and only result due to improper treatment.

peasant

nesf

I would basically agree with your statement ...except for the breed thing.

Variances in behaviour between individuals of one breed have in somes cases be found to be higher than variances between individuals from different breeds.

If a generalisation has to be made i think it would be safer to go along the "type" descriptions (herder, hunter, sighthound, retriever, etc) than breed descriptions.

Especially in light of the fact that proper breed descriptions rarely exist. Breed standards describe shape, skeletal makeup, colour etc quite extensively but are very generic when it comes to behaviour and character descriptions.

The quality of breed write-ups on websites and in breed specific books depends heavily on the bias of the author and how far he / she has already ventured into fairy-land.

It is quite common to come across conflicting breed descriptions (as to character / behaviour) ...so which one would you use as a yardstick ?

Type descriptions on the other hand go back to the times when dogs were still bred for ability rather than show, so they give a more accurate picture of what kind of behaviour patterns might or might not be expected to develop.

But in the end the individual dog might still not conform ...
(Especially so when mistakes were made in its upbringing)

MorningStar

aare wrote:

Greyhounds are NOT stupid, but they don't mind if you think they are, it's SO much easier to buy you and sell you that way.

.

I never said they were stupid I said they were bred to be stupid. Don't assume anything or you will end up saying things like I am leaving and then keep on saying things. They aren't smart dogs but they aren't stupid either but you don't want a smart greyhound as they won't run after electric machines.
I am very familiar with the breed and how they are treated in this country are you? I may no longer be involved but I have seen how they can be treated.

WhiteWashMan

ok children (look at me, a mod being rude again...) thread locked for being absolutely pointless.

if you want it reopened so you can continue to fight the good fight, pm the moderator of this forum.