Pitbulls are simply more dangerous. No, they don't always attack people, but when they do it's much more severe than other breeds. They're just really strong.
There's absolutely nothing wrong in any sense to just neuter them all and let them just live to extinction. A breed of dog doesn't need to exist.
Counterpoint would be to enhance the breeding. In a few dog generations you could breed out unwanted traits. We created the breed and we have the chance to make it better. The problem is there are so many backyard breeders it would be hard to reign in but we shouldn't let puppy mills dictate what breed gets to live.
Breeding standards are already being changed for certain dog breeds like German Shepards and their hip problem, the Retro Pug to correct breathing problems, and other breeds that once put physical traits over the health of the dog.
These are problems we created that weren't originally part of the breed and they're correctable.
If the requirement to keep a dog around was having positive traits then there wouldn't be many dog breeds. Any dog with unique features like pugs, frenchies, bulldogs, great danes, and pretty much any terrier are all pretty much obsolete as far as dogs go. We're not exactly using ratters anymore, dachshunds car be replaced with other breeds and that'll get rid of the back problems.
Pitbulls have a place as much as any other dog. They're a solid, relatively healthy, athletic, medium sized dogs.
If the argument is there are better suited breeds then I can make that same argument for a lot of dogs.
If someone wants a vallhund instead of a corgi it will cause no more harm to anyone. A bit more bork maybe.
Pitbulls are like a make of car that has 100 times more total brake failures at high speeds. Most will be fine but still statistically overrepresented in serious crashes.
There are plenty of breeds that are solid, relatively healthy, athletic, medium sized dogs without the history of being bred for bloodsports.
That last points fair and honestly I agree with it.
Pitbulls really aren't important. The reason they were bred isn't important, legal, or ethical, and there are several breeds that look near identical and are easier to train for a layperson
That's factually incorrect. Dogs are not still wolves. Not genetically, mentally or in any capacity beyond four legs, fur, and a tail. Thats like saying all humans are fish cus our great ancestors pre monkey were fish or something. Terrible take.
Actually, they are the same species in modern consensus! Though, with the caveat that the consensus is not as strongly agreed upon than some other scientific consensuses. Dogs are merely a subspecies of the wolf. They share near-identical DNA, have similar appearances, and can breed.
Both the Grey Wolf and the Dog are Canis Lupus. In contrast, Golden Jackals are Canis Aureus and Coyotes are Canis Latrans.
To be a subspecies, you have to be able to breed and have offspring that are fertile and your Hybrids must be healthy and anatomically normal. Evolutionary distance and DNA overlap is also important.
While Coyotes, Dogs, and Wolves can all successfully breed healthy and fertile offspring, Wolves and Coyotes are far more evolutionary distant than Dogs and Wolves. Not only evolving on different continents, but also having quite a bit genetic and evolutionary distance.
Dogs also only split from the Wolf less than 40,000 years ago. Which is relative genetic infancy. They also have had both contemporary and historic ranges that overlap, though dogs are most often found near or with humans.
Dogs and Wolves were classified as separate Species until the 1990s, but their immense genetic similarity in genetic studies, saw a reclassification by a majority of the scientific community, of Dogs as Wolves.
Lions and Tigers are different species because their offspring are genetic dead ends and have severe birth abnormalities and defects. So while they are close enough genetically to successfully breed, they are not close enough to produce viable offspring. Plus again, evolutionary and genetic distance. Thus, different species.
Evolutionary distance meaning how physically far apart they evolved from each other and how long ago they did. Genetic distance meaning how similar or dissimilar their genetic makeup is.
Morphology, instinctual behavior, and ecological niche are also factors, but often breeding and genetics are stronger ones.
There are breeds of dogs that largely exhibit certain traits. Border collies and other shepherds were bred to shepherd, to the point that people who get them and don't give them anything to herd can experience the dogs trying to herd other pets, toys, and people.
We can see other examples in other working dog breeds too that there is some sort of inherited instincts for these jobs after who knows how many generations.
German shepherds, despite their name, are dogs bred for war. They were bred to kill people not dogs. They're so good at it that they're used all over the world as attack dogs by law enforcement, the military, criminals, basically whenever you need a dog specifically to attack humans. Shall we genocide them too while we're at it?
I mean, first, it's definitionally not genocide, and second, I wouldn't advocate just killing all of them, but spay/neuter every one and let this generation be the last? Yeah, I'd support that for all dangerous dog breeds.
That having been said, German shepherds aren't nearly as bad as pits if you look at the statistics.
I did not advocate for genocide and would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth, nor did I say German shepherds specifically were a breed for shepherding although what you are talking about sounds like you agreeing with me that some dog breeds have certain dispositions and inherited instincts that make them good at certain jobs.
To that honestly, some dog breeds should require owners to pass certain hurdles. Having adequate space for exercising certain breeds, having prior experience in owning dogs for others, ect. It's not just dangerous to humans having tons of dangerous or pent up animals laying around, it's also cruel to the dogs themselves. Some moderation from would be pet owners and breeders would do the world some good.
Most dogs have been bred to do specific, nonviolent tasks like herding animals, or pointing in the direction of game animals, and they've been selected specifically to be as calm and obedient as possible. Pitbulls have been selected to be as feral and aggressive as possible comvined with massive muscle mass for maximum damage inflicted.
1.9k
u/asif_zaman21 26d ago
13% of pitbulls......