Torn on pit bulls (again)

[drjeffrock]

CC, good point about redirected aggression. I have witnessed it numerous times (dogs trying to get to another dog through a fence, only to turn around and bite the other dog in their pack.)
And to clarify for others, dog agression in no way determines if a dog has game.
Take Dex for example. When he sees other dogs, his chest puffs out, the hair goes up, he growls, sometimes gives a lunge, etc. Due to some of his behaviors, I am pretty darn sure he is not game. Obviously, I dont really care either way. But just cause a dog is hot when he sees other dogs, it in no way is an indicator his/her gameness.

[EMS66]

Sorry, I have only posted here a handful of times over the past couple of years, and I hate to intrude, BUT . . .

For about five years, I've been involved in pit bull rescue in one capacity or another, and I want to note that those of us who work with pit bulls from shelters and abuse situations and so on have managed to determine a dog's soundness and reliability with humans [b]without[/b] matching or game-testing. So using the argument that matching is excusable because it helps determine a dog's sound temperament is, quite frankly, disingenuous.

Even if a dog performs beautifully in a match, is focused on the other dog, and does not redirect its aggression to its human handler in the pit, how do you know that dog will not exhibit excessive protective instincts in the home? That it will not have any food aggression? That the dog doesn't have any other kind of tempermant issue that will make it act out in the real world, regardless of pit performance? Dog behavior and drives can be rather complex, and a game-test does not determine a dog's behavior in all situations--it only tests the dog's behavior and temperament when in the pit, when the dog is intently focused on one thing only--the fight with the other dog. Anyone who knows pit bulls well knows that for many of them, once they are turned onto the particular object that stimulates their drives, they remain focused on that object. In the pit that focus would be the other dog. So it never surprises me to hear that the most game dogs fighting in the pit are not distracted from their focus by human beings attempting to intervene. A so-called "cur" would lack that focus and drive and would become frustrated and lash out at the human being . . . with some pit bulls, I swear that when they are focused on something, they don't even know that anything exists outside of the object of their desire.

Behavior in real-world situations, reliability with human beings, soundness in all situations, even when focused and even when all the dog's buttons are being pushed, even when food is involved, even when prey is involved, complete adoration for humans--those are the things that responsible pit bull rescuers are constantly looking for and testing for by putting the dog into situations it will encounter in the world--any signs of unsoundness, and the dog is humanely euthanized.

We manage to do all this without testing the dogs in the pit. So in my view, game testing really doesn't prove much more than that the dog will not give up the fight and will not break concentration when distracted or manipulated by the people around it.

Game testing proves gameness--that is, the desire of a dog to never give up the fight. I personally don't know that the average human being, pet owner, handler really needs a terribly game dog.

If you're putting a dog into a performance home, I think there are other ways of determining the dog's ability to do the job . . . perhaps not "gameness" as the term is used by dogmen. But I'm not sure that calling a dog "game" is doing anyone--not even the pit bull bred itself--any favors. Despite the argument that the breed's gameness needs to be preserved. Do we really, in this day and age when dogfighting is illegal and this breed is in danger of being legislated out of existence, *need* to know that our dogs will fight to the death?

[__crazy_canine__]

Good post Alan.

[quote name='Alan']When dog fighting was legal, it was common practice to kill man biters because they didnt want to get biten handling their dogs in a fight. One must realize that often times a loosing dog can be worth more money than a winning dog. As an example, if the match is totaly one sided and the looser, continues to fight, it can be said to be game. The status of the winnner may not be known if never has an oponent who can challenge it. It may just be a good fighter but not be game.[/quote]
Yeah, and this whole thing makes me mad actually... a cur could become a Gr Ch. Im going to use Chinamin as an example again. He killed most of the dogs he went up against or otherwise the other dog was picked up. A dog like that wins so quickly he doesnt have to be game, not saying Chinamin wasnt of course.

[BuddysMom]

Thenk you to EMS66. Gahd doesn't anyone else here agree with this? Probably not ... *sigh*

[__crazy_canine__]

[quote name='BuddysMom']Thenk you to EMS66. Gahd doesn't anyone else here agree with this? Probably not ... *sigh*[/quote]Yeah there are others here who agree with this BuddysMom, youre not alone. :wink:

But, Im not even getting into a debate about that because its been done to death. Agree to disagree, is always the ending. :P

[BuddysMom]

[quote name='__crazy_canine__'][quote name='BuddysMom']Thenk you to EMS66. Gahd doesn't anyone else here agree with this? Probably not ... *sigh*[/quote]Yeah there are others here who agree with this BuddysMom, youre not alone. :wink:

But, Im not even getting into a debate about that because its been done to death. Agree to disagree, is always the ending. :P[/quote]

Thanks, glad to know I'm not alone. Those who are of like mind with me are probably just smart to stay out of these threads, much less starting them! :lol: I know it would save me alot of grief. It's tough because I feel a kinship with you, Jess, and Hmmmm on other topics, but when it comes to this one I end up feeling alone and made out to be a villain. But it's nothing I can't handle :wink:

[BuddysMom]

Thanks ... that means a lot coming from The Marshall!

[__crazy_canine__]

*hugs* We love you BuddysMom! :P

[BuddysMom]

[quote name='__crazy_canine__']*hugs* We love you BuddysMom! :P[/quote]

*sniff* thanks guys :P

Alan I can't help thinking of the Little Rascal's dog when you mention the Old Days ... wasn't it a pit bull? And what was it's name?

[drjeffrock]

EMS that is a fantastic post! Get your butt on the forums and post more often! :kciuki:

[drjeffrock]

What? It changes b u t t to Glueteus Maximus. :o

[__crazy_canine__]

[url]http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/pete.php[/url]

:wink:

...adn, wow, Jeff, youre slow :lol: thats been around for quite a while now.

[BuddysMom]

YES, it's Petey!!!

[BuddysMom]

[quote name='Alan'][quote name='Michele'][quote name='BuddysMom']YES, it's Petey!!![/quote]

i used to watch that show..that dog was so cute....[/quote]

The cool thing about him was, have you ever noticed he did a lot of scenes, grabbing people by the pants in the name of protecting the kids. Yet, he never bit anyone and one of the Pit Bulls strongest supporters was Spanky. A few years back, he was active in speaking for the breed. I dont know if he is alive now or not.[/quote]

He's gone :cry:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_%22Spanky%22_McFarland[/url]

[Guest Anonymous]

Pyr, you didnt offend me in the least bit!! :D

[pyrless]

okay good! :D

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='Alan']I see what EMS66 is getting at and I think they have some valid points. I do however belive that game dogs have a more stable temperment. I base that on the these facts.

1. Any one who works with dogs, such as a vet, or animal control, or a mailman even, will tell you that the chances of being bit by a Pit Bull are far less than any other breed. They are just more dangerous when they do. It only seems logical to me that this would be because they were bred to fight and be dog agressive and not people agressive.

2. I have been around both game bred and non game bred and yes, there are good and bad of both, but my own experience has shown me game bred dogs are more stable.

3. Pit Bulls never got to be a problem with dog attacks until they became popular. You can say that the popularity is what caused but, these dogs were around kids in the past and allowed in homes, yet, I have never heard of anyone being mauled back then. IMO, that is saying that something changed along the way. We do no for certain that breeding practices did change.[/quote]
Alan, your posts have been excellent!!
I would just like to add to #3... If you look back before pit bulls were so popular they were considered THE family pet. Considered to be the best family dog. They represented our country during the wars. The problems they have today didnt exist.
IMO, the reason the breed/breeds are considered to be what they are now is from all the bybing going on, the want for show dogs, and the "bigger is better" attitude of Americans. People are mixing pit bulls with other breeds (which is a major no-no) and trying to pass them off as full blooded APBTs. These huge 100lb. dogs are being labled full-blooded. Its BS. Real full-blooded APBTs take the blame for these mutts (not to mention taking the blame for dogs that dont even have any pit in them).
I really dont get how people can say matching APBTs is part of the problem when that is how the [u]American[/u] Pit Bull Terrier came about.
And, when only the true connoisseurs of the breed were the ones with them, people adored the breed.

[courtnek]

GEEZ!!! I'm gonna have to quit my job to keep up with you guys!!!

[quote]Alan wrote:
I see what EMS66 is getting at and I think they have some valid points. I do however belive that game dogs have a more stable temperment. I base that on the these facts.

1. Any one who works with dogs, such as a vet, or animal control, or a mailman even, will tell you that the chances of being bit by a Pit Bull are far less than any other breed. They are just more dangerous when they do. It only seems logical to me that this would be because they were bred to fight and be dog agressive and not people agressive.

2. I have been around both game bred and non game bred and yes, there are good and bad of both, but my own experience has shown me game bred dogs are more stable.

3. Pit Bulls never got to be a problem with dog attacks until they became popular. You can say that the popularity is what caused but, these dogs were around kids in the past and allowed in homes, yet, I have never heard of anyone being mauled back then. IMO, that is saying that something changed along the way. We do no for certain that breeding practices did change.
[/quote]

excellent points, every one.let me throw my 2 cents in(like any of you thought I wouldnt? lol)

in the "old days" PB's that werent used for fighting were pets, and were mostly purebred. they were the "nanny dog", completely safe around children and old people, people in general. they were not abused, starved, beaten..the dogfighting rings were legal, those dogs were raised and treated differently. I dont agree with any of it, but thats what was done.

p.s. Laura Ingalls dog was a Pit Bull too (Little House On The Prairie)

enter the days of Dog Fighting becoming illegal, where drugs and high bet money is involved. People stopped fighting Pits, and started fighting Pit Mixes. Mixed with Mastiffs, with GSD's, with Rotties....behold, we have a completely different dog.these are not Petey dogs, they are not game dogs bred with the tolerance of people. I would bet that today's fighting dogs cant be hands-on handled by their owners(not the game dogs, but the drug kingpin dogs) and have to be broken up with a breaking stick...

or beaten to death. BM, I understand COMPLETELY where you are coming from. what has been done to the Petey's of the world, the nanny-dogs, by misbreeding, mistreating and mistraining, is a travesty....but these dogs ARENT Petey. there is no such thing as a pure 90 lb. Pit Bull...they didnt choose to just mix these dogs to make them bigger, stronger...they chose to mix them with guardian breeds...breeds that DO NOT have the bite inhibition towards humans that a purePit does, and dogs that will become more aggressive when mis-treated or when the natural animal aggressiveness gets "turned on"by something.

do we stop breeding Pits? I say no. A wellbred Pit can be an ambassador for its breed.....

this is my take, long lambasted for it, but I stand by it. Make breeding ILLEGAL unless the breeder has been licensed by the state. or county .ANY breed, not just Pits. Licensing fees are determined by "output"...how many litters the bitch has per year. Good breeders dont try for more than two litters a year anyway.

Track it the same way they do rabies. you go to the vet, dog isnt "done", no breeders license, NEUT is now necessaey. mandatory, not a choice.
I believe this will cut down on a lot of BYBing...they wont want to pay for the bazillion litters they force these dogs to have every year, and their premises should need to be inspected twice a year. without notice. If I was a good breeder, I would NOT object to that, for the benefits of the dogs...

would it cut out all instances of "bad" APBT's? no, of course not. the criminals wont follow the laws anyway. but it WILL make it harder for the Smiths and the Johnson's, who are dog clueless and want one of these dogs, to get one..unless they get it illegally...which the average person wont. so will it solve the dimenma? no..will it cut down on it? I believe so.

[spirallollipop]

Hello all, this is the first time I have been on this forum, I was directed here by someone else on another forum, a pitbullforum.com. I have to say I am surprised to find what seems to be pro fighting "gameness" sentiments being glamorized here.

I was unaware that there was something called matching, I don't know what it is. Although fighting is the only way to test for "gameness", which is what your talking about. Which is ILLEGAL, WRONG, OUTDATED, INHUMANE.

"First, matches have rules, fights dont. Kinda like a street fight vs. a boxing match. The street fight is just two people going at it while the match was contracted for a certain date, time, weight.... The dogs are brought into a match in top condition. Dogs used in fighting are usually forced into fighting while dogs in matches want to be there."

So how is matching controlled, how are there rules are the dogs muzzled, umm I don't understand? So matching is fighting with rules??? umm still illegal, and wrong.

All I have heard to defend this matching are the same excuse fighters give for there dogs, it is sickening to read this, like it is accepted here. Please correct me if I am wrong. I mean I would like to think this is a forum I can be on without comprimising my morals.

I can't beleive that this isn't banned on here, a website about dogs, talking about, cruel acts on dogs, should be banned.

I am totally confused I feel like I walked into another dimension or something. Are you going to just ignore what I said like the last guy?

The orginal topic of this thread, what to do about the abuse on pit bulls, which I agree is actually a problem with all dogs. There are lots of people fighting for and supporting pit bulls, check out the forum I listed. Post these sentiments on there, you will find your excuses shot away one by one.

[imported_Irena]

[quote name='GreyhoundMama']I wish I had the statistics in front of me. It's my understanding that pit bulls are not nearly as frequent a biter as many other breeds. I think chihuahuas are #1, but of course they can't do much damage with their tiny mouths. But if I remember correctly, it was something like a german shepard with the most dangerous rating. No one's suggesting we do away with them because they're popular. Rin Tin Tin, and all the war stories, and police dogs, and so on, make GSDs seen as heros. But they can be very dangerous if trained badly, just like many large dogs.

I'm not in favor of any breed-specific legislation or removal. That just blindly attempts to address a symptom, not the problem. The problem is idiots who don't properly raise, train, and restrain their dogs. And people who engage in macho fighting "sports" with animals. I know an Italian greyhound who was used as live bait to "train" fighting dogs. The lucky IG survived and ended up in rescue. People who do that are sick, and they create monsters out of man's best friend.[/quote]

well said, and i will have the time i will have more to add :wink:

[abker17]

[quote]I have to say I am surprised to find what seems to be pro fighting "gameness" sentiments being [b]glamorized[/b] here.[/quote]

Please direct me to a post where anyone has "glamorized" fighting dogs on this board. Just because we're open to discussing matching and fighting doesn't mean we're glamorizing it, just that we want to be educated about it.

[quote]I was unaware that there was something called matching, I don't know what it is. Although fighting is the only way to test for "gameness", which is what your talking about.[/quote]

If you are unaware of what matching is why do you suddenly proceed to condemn it? Don't start talking shit about something you know nothing about. If you want to learn about matching there is information about it in latter threads that you can look up. After you've read those and have a good idea of what it is then feel free to back up your opinion. But going off about something you just stated you have no knowledge of... come on now.

[quote]So how is matching controlled, how are there rules are the dogs muzzled, umm I don't understand? So matching is fighting with rules??? umm still illegal, and wrong.[/quote]

Again, why do you proceed to make that assumption when no one has even answers your questions yet?

[quote]I mean I would like to think this is a forum I can be on without comprimising my morals.[/quote]

Oh please. If you're so ignorant as to run away from a topic everytime it "comprimises your morals" then you won't be on this board long. No one here condones the abuse of animals in any way. But some do not believe that matching is abuse. If you had done your research maybe you would see why.

[quote]I can't beleive that this isn't banned on here, a website about dogs, talking about, cruel acts on dogs, should be banned.[/quote]

Jesus christ, why should it be banned? If we have the information about how fighting goes on and etc then that will help us to help the animals. Ignoring a topic just because it's disgusting does NO good. That's like saying if this was a forum about women, we shouldn't talk about the women in Sudan raped daily as they flee from home.

*Edited for a usage mistake.*

[drjeffrock]

[quote name='spirallollipop']

The orginal topic of this thread, what to do about the abuse on pit bulls, which I agree is actually a problem with all dogs. There are lots of people fighting and supporting pit bulls, check out the forum I listed. Post these sentiments on there, you will find your excuses shot away one by one.[/quote]
Look, nobody here advocates dog-fighting (well, there might be a couple, but they are in the EXTREME minority.) This board is not like PBF. Not everyone on here owns bullies. People are asking questions, and learning a lot. I dont see what is so wrong with some people saying that fighting dogs is the only way to find out if they are game or not, and other people disagreeing with it, or trying to come up with other ways. Instead of just joining here to reply to a single thread, take a look through the board. You will see that there are all kinds of people on here. Some knowledgeable, some wanting to learn more about bullies, and some who just dont know jack shiny about anything. :lol:
And I have posted of pbf in the past. Its freaking boring talking about pits all day long, and giving Diane Jessup handjobs every time she posts something.
-edited to add that I just want to clarify that I do not condone dog fighting OR matching. I love my dogs with all my heart, and it makes me just as ill as you when I see pics of dogs fought, etc.

[abker17]

[quote]And I have posted of pbf in the past. Its freaking boring talking about pits all day long, and giving Diane Jessup handjobs every time she posts something.[/quote]

LMAO. :roflt:

[Phez718]

[quote name='K']Well well...People from PitBullForum on MY board indeed...how[i]nice[/i]!

Or maybe you have a board of your own..a rescue board that we can bitch about because it has a chat page where something may or may not be said about someone or something that possibly may or may not have happened....we can ban you for that right?...wait while I run off to include that in our Board rules

when and IF you need banning I tell you what I'll do I will put it to a democratic vote :o (yes really!)...but I will be gracious enough to answer your e-mail asking me why you have been banned and I will offer a full explanation...how odd !!
[/quote]

First of all, thanks K I needed that. (says one of the damned...I mean banned) :lol:

Second, do we have to go through this again? I don't even post here much but I've read the matching debates, just do a search!

Third, I'm going to go back to what BM said in one of the first few pages.

[quote name='BuddysMom']No the breed shouldn't be eradicated...[/quote]

That's great! But you know what? This is what's happening as we speak. How many here knew that the governor of California signed SB 861?

Here's a little info:

SB 861 is the bill in California that will allow breed discrimination! The Governor signed this bill on Friday, October 7, 2005. We have filed a request for a referendum title and summary with the State Attorney General. A referendum is a voter-sponsored REJECTION, pursuant to the California State Constitution, of a law enacted by the legislature.

[b]SB 861 does not mention any single breed but allows counties to target any breed they choose for mandatory spay and neuter with NO exceptions for show dogs, service dogs, or dogs with health problems that would have their lives jeopardized by surgery. Show dogs cannot be spayed or neutered, so SB 861 could result in both the elimination of show dogs of certain breeds within various counties or the total extinction, over time, of targeted breeds.[/b]

SB 861 also refers to dogs as "dangerous or vicious" and could cause homeowners' insurance companies to cancel coverage for any customer that owns a purebred or mixed dog that looks like it might be one of the targeted breeds. These dogs include Jack Russell Terriers, Lab mixes, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, American Bulldogs, Bull Terriers, Doberman Pinschers, and many other breeds.

Yes, you read correctly. Counties dictate which dogs are dangerous! There is NO set breed!

[quote name='BuddysMom']yes I do feel like there are very few constructive things being done to really help pit bulls. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see much other than complaining about the media and BSL.[/quote]

Maybe you are right. But what are you doing to help pit bulls if you don't want the breed eradicated? I know plenty of people helping out to try and overturn SB 861, sadly it STILL may not be enough.

Oh, would you like to see how people trying to HELP the DOGS are treated?

"Petsmart and the Property Management company made it very
hard for us to talk to people. They tucked us out of the way, partially hidden from their customers by big beams and planters, and threatened us with arrest if we ventured outside the 8x8 painted box with our petitions. Even their own security guard admitted the tiny space they wanted to keep us restricted within was unreasonable. Despite the fact that Petsmart's customers were walking in and out with dogs that would be affected by the new law, the company didn't care. We had a very hard time catching the attention of relevant dog owners from our position.

Video Clip(will open in Windows Media Player): [url]http://www.chako.org/petsmartvid.WMV[/url]

Picture: [url]http://www.chako.org/box.jpg[/url]


[quote name='BuddysMom']Writing letters about what great animal companions many pit bulls are is important but it doesn't address the dark side or the terrible abuses that are going on. I do feel like no one is pondering serious solutions to BYB, fighting, etc ... just as long as there is no BSL, the media stays quiet, and we have the right to own OUR pit bulls, then everything is just dandy.[/quote]

Yeah, the BYBs and fighting and abuse is horrible. But with the breed in as much trouble as it is now, we as pit bull owners/advocates need to keep our priorities straight. If we don't fight BSL first and foremost then it will gain foothold and spring up everywhere and we won't have to worry about BYBs and fighting because we won't have any pit bulls.

You want to know what you can do? Here are some ideas:

[url]http://www.purebredpuppy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13781[/url]

[url]http://www.purebredpuppy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13765[/url]

[url]http://www.purebredpuppy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13796[/url]

Why not, instead of saying the pit bull community doesn't do enough, try and get members with ALL kinds of breeds to help out? SB 861 isn't a PIT BULL ban, it's a law that will give counties FREE REIGN to restrict whichever breeds they choose!

However, SB 861 in my opinion, is the foremost dangerous thing to my breed right now. If other states pass this, there will be no hope for pit bulls with all the bullshit media coverage, pit bulls and any dog that resembles them will be at the top of the list when those counties start restricting.

End of rant...for now. :evilbat:

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote]...giving Diane Jessup handjobs every time she posts something.[/quote]
:lol: :lol: Aint that the truth!!! And it shows how much they do know with the way they hang on her every word.
So many people who "rescue" or I should say "own" pit bulls (mind you most likely not full-blooded APBTs) THINK they know about matching dogs.... :roll: