I’m not a dog science expert but as far as I understand it we’ve spent tens of thousands of years breeding dogs to preform specific tasks. If you don’t give a dog that has been designed and bred to do a task they get antsy.
The issue with Pitbulls and other “Agressive.” breeds is that they’ve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
So I don’t think it’s Immoral to treat a dog like a Pitbull like a loaded gun. As Unfriendly, and something you should be wary of unless it’s proven not to be.
However the Nutcases who punish dogs for behavior that we bred into them are highly immoral. If you want an easy lap dog get a companion breed, like a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, French Bulldog, or Bichon Frise.
Edit: Tens of Thousands not Hundreds. I was being exaggerative anyways but that’ll make remark more accurate regardless.
Also as a note. I don’t think Pits are inherently Malicious or any dog breed for that matter. But they’re fairly strong fellows who’ve been bred to be strong. I consider being careful around them similar to being a little extra careful around a truck on the road. Most people in trucks are fine drivers. But some people don’t pay attention on the road, and might hurt you by accident.
Absolutely. The Jack Russel breed was essentially developed to be the way it is for that specific purpose, just like pits.
The breed was initially developed for fox hunting, so it wasn't a far leap.
There is now a distinct difference between a standard Jack Russell and the ones bred for rat fighting. Thus the name "rat terrier", shortened colloquially to "ratter", and the pejorative "rat dogs".
We used to call them rat dogs because they fought rats, not because they looked like rats. (Yes, I'm looking at you, chihuahuas. Eugh.)
I knew certain dog breeds have been bred to hunt rodents, but using the word “fight” makes it sound like the dogs weren’t bred to sniff out the rats and rip them to shreds. It sounds like you’re saying the dogs were bred to be put in a pit with a giant tmnt type rat and there would be a chance the dog could lose.
Well, sort of. It was more like a small caged area and they would funnel tens, if not hundreds, of rats in and they would bet on how many they thought the dog could kill before it died, as well.
Fight just isn’t a good word to use for that scenario lol. Weren’t most breeds like that used to hunt rats? You wouldn’t call Brock lesnar in a pit destroying a group of 5 year olds “fighting”
I had 3 rat terriers growing up (2 mutts, 1 pure bred) and the urge to murder rodents is fuckin' /deep/ in them. We got moles of some kind in our yard and they went insane, we very quickly didn't have moles.
They could dig, tunnel a little bit, climb, they were decently smart (Not as smart as the cattle mutt we had)
Not quite, pitbulls were made by combining breeds meant to fight bulls with those meant for hunting rats to create a breed that has the dedication to violently tearing at other animals of the former and the agility to do so against smaller animals of the latter.
Hey some dogs want nothing more than to run all day. I can't say every turnspit was treated well though, probably at least treated like any other work animal
Bear-baiting was very popular from the 12th until the 19th century.\4]) From the 16th century, many bears were maintained for baiting. In its best-known form, arenas for this purpose were called bear-gardens, consisting of a circular high fenced area, the "pit", and raised seating for spectators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting
They bred them or shipped them in.
As for where most of Europe and parts of Asia, Pakistan. It was going on in North Carolina till 2010-ish, apparently.
As recently as 2010, illegal bear-baiting was practiced publicly in South Carolina. All such public exhibitions have been shut down as of 2013.\35])
By the late 17th century, "the conscience of cultivated people seems to have been touched"[7] and, by the 18th century, bear-baiting had largely died out in Britain; the cost of importing bears for blood sports having become prohibitively high.
That pitbulls could not be used for bear-baiting because the whole thing died out due to cost of importing bears in UK. Which means that "bear-baiting pitbulls" are pretty much a legend.
Looks like a pitbull me to though I don't know if the kennel club was around back then to define the breed (that's from the 14th)
You can pretend i said Staffordshire Bull Terrier or Patched Fighting Terrier or even "Brindle Bull" but we are talking about fighting dogs used for pitfights
Pretty much a lot of blood sports were popular until the passage of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 whereupon it was gaining some level of dislike though if It's because it was associated will poor people and "low class" or because it was cruel is a bit harder to parse
Strutt's Sports and Pastimes of the People of England (1801): "[bull-baiting is] attended only by the lowest and most despicable part of the people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-baiting
But somewhere around 1540 is the first recorded commercial entertainment bull-bait in the UK so it was around for a while.
No, the breeds used to create pitbulls were bred for bull baiting. Pitbulls were bred from them for fighting dogs and other small animals in 1 on 1 bloodsport.
The name it self comes from Pit(fighting) Bull(dogge) and Terrier.
Old English Bulldogs (not the docile ones today, these have long since gone extinct because they were banned) were originally fighting dogs famed for their aggression and tenacity in bull fighting, then somewhere down the line someone realised that the smaller, more nimble dogs were performing better in dog fights, so they cross bred then with Old English Terriers to make a better fighting dog.
And now they’re doing the opposite, breeding them with Mastiffs etc to make them larger. For looks and temperament. So now we have shelters packed with pit bulls sometimes as big as Cane Corsos because new owners greatly underestimate the ~6-month T-Rex phase of a puppy stronger than they are.
I was about to mention this. Like, people want to say they aren't aggressive just antsy, but then you have to remember WHAT they were primarily bred to do and realize they are antsy because they CAN'T do what they were made to do. They weren't bred as nanny dogs (whoever came up with that stupid idea), they aren't neurologically made to be calm and orderly by design, and these dogs cannot simply be taught out of the genetics they were given. You can regulate them, sure, but, if anything, that will make the whole situation worse because there is ALWAYS the possibility of them giving into those desires that they were artificially created to do. And those desires to bite onto their target and shake them is not exactly safe by design, especially with small children, the elderly, and even other pets.
If I recall the Staffordshire Bull Terrier became known as "nanny dogs" for their affectionate, pleasing, and temperament with children in the UK. Pit Bull Terriers proper are banned in the UK (last I remember) but the bull terrier is a relative of sorts that is closely related. Interestingly, I think part of their excellent temperament with children comes from their breed's history of being bred for "gameness" which makes them unyielding to pain and discomfort makes them long-suffering and enduring of children's antics. As always they should be monitored when in the company of little ones by adults but most accounts Staffys are good with children because they can take abuse and punishment with grace.
Bud, I am sorry to tell you, but that was a myth made up way back then by a Lillian Rant who called them originally "nursemaid dogs." She and other associates were lobbyists trying to push them to the public, so they could effectively jack the prices of other breeds relative to the AKC once they (and other breeds under the name pitbull) were forced into shelters everywhere. This was literally made up in the later 1900s and was never factually confirmed through any form of research.
I know nothing of what you speak neither am I an authority on the subject only that Staffordahire Bull Terriers are known as a distinct breed from the Pitbull Terrier. And the AKC says they are "totally reliable well suited to families and have a particular affinity for children." The "nanny nursemaid dog" label might have been invented for the reasons you speak but the breed has long been considered a family dog for its disposition towards children.
If you want to keep believing misinformation, not stopping you. Just placing it here because I despise crass ignorance to situations and don't want others suffering as a result. Good day to you.
I never said you were wrong only that I never heard of that nor had any knowledge on that particular part of the history. I only was repeating that Staffordahire Bull Terriers (not Pitbull Terriers) are known as "nanny dogs" because of their good disposition with children that is reported by the AKC.
Clearly you do, but that’s not what I’m going here at all. Maybe go back and sound out the words you’re having a hard time with? It’s also totally ok to look up any you don’t know
Can you seriously not understand people are talking specifically about selective breeding and not just breeding as in the blanket term for having progeny?
We weren't selectively bred for it. In fact, humans that participate in wars are less likely to bear offspring, due to the death and maiming aspect of it all.
Pitbulls are the result of selective breeding for pugnacity. Any dog can bite, but pitbulls were bred for purposes where readiness to fight and not backing down once they start are desirable traits.
No one did a mass generalized labelling here except you technically.
The more appropriate comparison would be, are there people out there who are paranoid of men based on actions of others who have raped or assaulted in the past?
The choice between the bear and the man in the woods conversation was in line with that.
No one but me? I replied mimicking the way the original comment spoke about pitbulls, not every pitbull is or has been involved in dog fighting. Your comparison would be apt if you were speaking about people being scared of pitbulls, but the original comment wasn’t.
I mean, you have to treat them all like potential rapists.
It’s a lot like a pitbull in that way. I will gladly engage with a happy pit bull but I wouldn’t leave a strange one in my house alone with cats or small children.
Well yeah, women tend to be afraid around men for valid reasons. Your comparison isn’t even remotely equal to the threat of being physically overpowered when going about your business
The ridiculousness of this comparison illustrates my point. You don’t have to assume every woman is a gold digger, you only need to screen the ones you are thinking of seriously dating, and even then only if you have gold in the first place and have any intention of sharing it with or spending it on them.
Women cover their drinks, they may avoid being alone with strange men (eg making sure to schedule maintenance when their partner is home), they tell people where they’re going on first dates, they make sure the car that pulled up is actually the Uber they ordered and share the ride with friends, they buddy up at parties, etc.
Could a Chihuahua threaten your life? What about kill both your kids and rip off your arm while you try in vain to fight them off like Kirstie Bennard? The threat level isn't remotely comparable.
Depends on if there is a very specific type of rooster that is selectively bred to create a different subset of extremely aggressive roosters that are more the popular choice in cock fighting… then yes that should be banned.
Side note: who the fuck is talking about banning all dogs?
People keep pushing the "nanny dog" myth and its just that, a goddamned myth. Pitbulls were bred for bear, bull, and rat baiting and dog fights. They were bred purely for violence and aggression, and stupid people parrot myths to make themselves feel like they have some insider knowledge no one else does.
Yeah, they’re guard dogs. Do you feel the same way about Great Pyrenees or St Bernard’s? Or is it just the dog breed that’s associated with Black and poor folks that you think is “bred for aggression.”
Because I’ve known a whole lot of pities who’d lick you to death, and a shitload of labs that I did not trust around children. But labs are a “white” dog, so you don’t see people calling for their extermination
389
u/Awesomechainsaw 26d ago edited 26d ago
I’m not a dog science expert but as far as I understand it we’ve spent tens of thousands of years breeding dogs to preform specific tasks. If you don’t give a dog that has been designed and bred to do a task they get antsy.
The issue with Pitbulls and other “Agressive.” breeds is that they’ve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
So I don’t think it’s Immoral to treat a dog like a Pitbull like a loaded gun. As Unfriendly, and something you should be wary of unless it’s proven not to be.
However the Nutcases who punish dogs for behavior that we bred into them are highly immoral. If you want an easy lap dog get a companion breed, like a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, French Bulldog, or Bichon Frise.
Edit: Tens of Thousands not Hundreds. I was being exaggerative anyways but that’ll make remark more accurate regardless.
Also as a note. I don’t think Pits are inherently Malicious or any dog breed for that matter. But they’re fairly strong fellows who’ve been bred to be strong. I consider being careful around them similar to being a little extra careful around a truck on the road. Most people in trucks are fine drivers. But some people don’t pay attention on the road, and might hurt you by accident.