|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 22, 2013 9:20:37 GMT -5
I have question for y'all. What's your take on the term "Bully Breeds"? I'm noticing more shelters and advocacy groups/rescues using it. I did an informal research project on what people think that term means, which breeds they include, where they got the information from, and why they chose to include those breeds. The results were really interesting, and I'm writing them up in a blog post I'm working on. Thoughts? I don't use it. The word BULLY means something very specific to the average person. I like and use the term Bull Breeds. Any breed with bulldog ancestry will fall into this category.
|
|
|
Post by seamonkey on Apr 22, 2013 13:37:37 GMT -5
Emily, do you think visual breed ID is reliable in mixed-breed dogs? It can be, sure. Why not? This is Matilda. She is a mixed breed. She is listed as Pit Bull X at both the rescue and both vet clinics I take her to. The most of the X anyone has been able to guess at so far is that MAYBE she might have a little Labrador in her. But I DO get asked in public a lot "Is that a Pit Bull?" Ames generic description earlier that it was said earlier was nothing like a pit bull is actually the description of an Akita. My Akita was also a mixed breed and the result of a man with a pure bred Akita leaning over the fence and asking the person next door with a mixed breed unspayed female "Oh hai, puppies?" A visual ID on her was harder down here because Akita's and Akita mixes are less popular due to our weather, but Ames description was spot on for Lucy
|
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 23, 2013 10:22:03 GMT -5
But see, here's where I have an issue - because I feel ALL dog breeds should be treated as breeds with breed tendencies, you're accusing me of supporting BSL. That's the correlation I absolutely do not understand. I don't want a Border Collie because they stare and they have a tendency to try to herd other creatures in the house. I don't want a guardian breed because I like dogs that are wiggly and thrilled to meet new people. I don't want a *insert breed* because they have a tendency to *insert breed characteristic*. That isn't BSL. That's being realistic. If people don't want to potentially deal with dog aggression and having to crate and rotate and not go to dog parks, DON'T GET A PIT BULL. Period. That's not BSL. That's being realistic about the breed. That doesn't mean I support BSL though. That's absurd. I truly don't understand how that correlation can be made. I truly don't. And I've been accused of being a bad advocate and supporting BSL enough because of this that I'm starting to get annoyed. It's ludicrous. Because I believe all dog breeds are prone to display certain behaviors (not WILL display, PRONE to display), I think they should be banned or discriminated against? No, of course not. I just don't get it. The argument is the pit bull was created to kill why do you want a dog that specializes in killing things? That's what I get all the time. Then people say ANY amount of APBT is bad for any dogs. THAT'S what the problem is. Assuming a dog visually ID'ed is a pit bull is assuming you know how it was bred. Maybe the dog was Bred for color or just to make money, that is NOT breeding for behavioral traits or to prevent health issues. By saying these dogs are born game, without knowing how they were bred is just ignorant.
|
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 23, 2013 10:43:32 GMT -5
Sorry I meant to add but somehow this phone app sucks and won't let me. Keeps crashing in me in edit mode.
What I meant to say is if you know what traits your dog was bred for when you have no idea who or what bred them is ignorant because genetically just because you take 2 dogs doesn't mean the offspring will have the same behavior. There are plenty of stories about old game dogs who had No issues with animals outside the box. There are some that had issues all time. Every dog is different. Gamedog, gopitbull and pitbull chat, lots of places don't agree with dog parks, but I take it to the level bad for all dogs not just bully breeds. I don't think any dogs should be left with other animals alone without supervision in their homes either. Why single out a dog that might not be bred into the dog. Cause we all have bad days why can't a dog, of any breed?
If the genes in a dog basically take 4 generations to breed out anything including aggression and its been illegal since the 70's then when is it ok to assume pups bred today are not for fighting but bred for other traits not aggression?
Why do people say get an American bully of you don't want a dog with dog aggression? Not on here just in general. It ignorant to assume any dog may or may not have aggression and casting the net labeling the issues to all dogs who look a certain way isn't helping anything since each dog is different and should be looked at as an individual IMO
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 23, 2013 11:41:36 GMT -5
But see, here's where I have an issue - because I feel ALL dog breeds should be treated as breeds with breed tendencies, you're accusing me of supporting BSL. That's the correlation I absolutely do not understand. I don't want a Border Collie because they stare and they have a tendency to try to herd other creatures in the house. I don't want a guardian breed because I like dogs that are wiggly and thrilled to meet new people. I don't want a *insert breed* because they have a tendency to *insert breed characteristic*. That isn't BSL. That's being realistic. If people don't want to potentially deal with dog aggression and having to crate and rotate and not go to dog parks, DON'T GET A PIT BULL. Period. That's not BSL. That's being realistic about the breed. That doesn't mean I support BSL though. That's absurd. I truly don't understand how that correlation can be made. I truly don't. And I've been accused of being a bad advocate and supporting BSL enough because of this that I'm starting to get annoyed. It's ludicrous. Because I believe all dog breeds are prone to display certain behaviors (not WILL display, PRONE to display), I think they should be banned or discriminated against? No, of course not. I just don't get it. The argument is the pit bull was created to kill why do you want a dog that specializes in killing things? That's what I get all the time. Then people say ANY amount of APBT is bad for any dogs. THAT'S what the problem is. Assuming a dog visually ID'ed is a pit bull is assuming you know how it was bred. Maybe the dog was Bred for color or just to make money, that is NOT breeding for behavioral traits or to prevent health issues. By saying these dogs are born game, without knowing how they were bred is just ignorant. no one except stupid haters says a pit bull was created to kill, except in the generic sense of being a terrier. This formula, so loved by the haters, is a red herring. Why pit bull advocates have a problem explaining reality to people baffles me. And then using this nonsense as some kind of argument against the reality of breed traits.. well, that's the problem right there.
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Apr 23, 2013 12:16:08 GMT -5
Fox Terriers and Foxhounds were created to hunt down and kill foxes, Rat Terriers (and many other Terriers) were created to kill rats, Dachshunds were created to fight and kill badgers, Greyhounds and other sight hounds were created to chase down and kill rabbits and other prey animals. There are countless breeds with bloody pasts, why would anyone want one of those dogs!?
|
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 23, 2013 17:47:31 GMT -5
The argument is the pit bull was created to kill why do you want a dog that specializes in killing things? That's what I get all the time. Then people say ANY amount of APBT is bad for any dogs. THAT'S what the problem is. Assuming a dog visually ID'ed is a pit bull is assuming you know how it was bred. Maybe the dog was Bred for color or just to make money, that is NOT breeding for behavioral traits or to prevent health issues. By saying these dogs are born game, without knowing how they were bred is just ignorant. no one except stupid haters says a pit bull was created to kill, except in the generic sense of being a terrier. This formula, so loved by the haters, is a red herring. Why pit bull advocates have a problem explaining reality to people baffles me. And then using this nonsense as some kind of argument against the reality of breed traits.. well, that's the problem right there. OK maybe I missed this and if so I apologize, why do you think original the APBT was bred for if not for fighting? Now its bred for weight pulling, conformation, agility, none of these are reason to have dog aggression continually bred into them and dogs without aggression tend to do better at these type of events. Aggression is no longer the trait legal breeders go for when breeding current day dogs, so trying to explain to someone that their dog which might look like a pure bred APBT might not have been bred or continue to have dog aggression off the gate. Unless your getting a hunting dog, but that's a whole different conversation since most hunting lines are close knit and are not going to wind up in a shelter. I feel drive and aggression to the point it makes a dog game are very different. So to agree we can visually ID dogs still does nothing about knowing a behavior if you don't know who bred the lines and what traits it was bred for. Genes that dictate behavior have nothing to do with those that dictate a look when you don't know how the dog was bred. you can only assume, which is what people do in regards to BDL. They assume any dog with a look must not be trusted and should be banned, destroyed, limited, etc. Getting the public to accept dog aggression and human aggression are very different is pointless IMO. Most refuse to grasp the difference or can't grasp it. Like someone said above, we might just be going in circles.
|
|
ames
Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by ames on Apr 23, 2013 17:56:39 GMT -5
Fox Terriers and Foxhounds were created to hunt down and kill foxes, Rat Terriers (and many other Terriers) were created to kill rats, Dachshunds were created to fight and kill badgers, Greyhounds and other sight hounds were created to chase down and kill rabbits and other prey animals. There are countless breeds with bloody pasts, why would anyone want one of those dogs!? I think working breeds are very different and are not targeted by BDL because you don't hear about irresponsible Fox Terrier owners and Foxhound owners allowing their dogs to maul people. Not saying they do not exist, the media doesn't care about other dogs, but I am sure you realize this. Do Rescues who have Dachshunds, Fox terriers or a greyhound tell them their breed is not for every owner and they typically have high aggression and not to go to dog parks? (I have a friend who adopted a greyhound, and she wasn't told any of that) I haven't searched out this confirmation, but it seems they take my philosophy of a dog is not the right dog for everyone, not a greyhound shouldn't be for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 23, 2013 18:35:59 GMT -5
The argument is the pit bull was created to kill why do you want a dog that specializes in killing things? That's what I get all the time. Then people say ANY amount of APBT is bad for any dogs. THAT'S what the problem is. Assuming a dog visually ID'ed is a pit bull is assuming you know how it was bred. Maybe the dog was Bred for color or just to make money, that is NOT breeding for behavioral traits or to prevent health issues. By saying these dogs are born game, without knowing how they were bred is just ignorant. no one except stupid haters says a pit bull was created to kill, except in the generic sense of being a terrier. This formula, so loved by the haters, is a red herring. Why pit bull advocates have a problem explaining reality to people baffles me. And then using this nonsense as some kind of argument against the reality of breed traits.. well, that's the problem right there. Emily, where are people saying that breed traits don't exist? You argue against this, but I'm not sure who is saying this is the first place.
|
|
|
Post by catstina on Apr 23, 2013 21:02:41 GMT -5
I think working breeds are very different and are not targeted by BDL because you don't hear about irresponsible Fox Terrier owners and Foxhound owners allowing their dogs to maul people. Not saying they do not exist, the media doesn't care about other dogs, but I am sure you realize this. Do Rescues who have Dachshunds, Fox terriers or a greyhound tell them their breed is not for every owner and they typically have high aggression and not to go to dog parks? (I have a friend who adopted a greyhound, and she wasn't told any of that) I haven't searched out this confirmation, but it seems they take my philosophy of a dog is not the right dog for everyone, not a greyhound shouldn't be for everyone. I don't know why you are using pro-BSL arguments against me, but here goes. Yes, I have heard about Terriers, Dachshunds, and Greyhounds attacking and even killing people.* You don't hear about it as much as you do attacks by breeds which the media can call "pit bulls" because they don't sell as many papers or get as many clicks, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And there aren't nearly as many "irresponsible [pit bull] owners allowing their dogs to maul people" as the media makes it out to seem considering they call any dog with short hair and a blocky head a "pit bull." I would think that you would know that... As for your questions about rescue, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you again! "Do Rescues who have Dachshunds, Fox terriers or a greyhound tell them their breed is not for every owner?" Yes.** "And they typically have high aggression and not to go to dog parks?" I haven't found any that mention dog parks specifically, but you will see in my quotes below that some of the breed rescues do, in fact, say that their breed may not get along with other dogs.** * Jack Russell Terrier bites infant's ear off: news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/05/02/jack-russell-terrier-bites-off-infant’s-ear/ Jack Russell Terrier kills infant: www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3607066.ece * Dachshunds, according to some sources, bite the most: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2254479/Sausage-dogs-are-the-most-aggressive-dogs.html* Greyhound mauls its owner: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1649799/Pet-dog-attacks-owner-Princess-Goodwin-as-she-slept-at-Crawley-home-Greyhound-Ali-put-to-sleep-after-dog-bites-owner.html** Rat Terrier ResQ has this question for its adopters: " As fabulous as rescued Ratties are, they are certainly not for everyone. There is no breed that fits all." ** From (funnily enough) The Real Jack Russell (The website for the JRTCA): " We have far too many terriers in Rescue that should never have been purchased by their original owners. Many did not realized the unique requirements and characteristics of the Jack Russell Terrier." " Jack Russells are often aggressive with other dogs." ** The All American Dachshund Rescue site has this to say about, Dachshunds: " Part of being a responsible pet owner is doing breed research to determine if a particular breed is right for you and your family. We encourage all of our adopters to research the Dachshund breed before you consider adopting one of our dogs. Below is a series of questions that are designed to help you determine if a Dachshund is the right dog for you. " Some of the questions: " Are you aware that Dachshunds particularly do not like large dogs?" " Did you know that you can never trust your Dachshund off leash?" ** From Greyhound Rescue and Rehab: " The following information will help you decide if a retired racer is the right pet choice for you and your family." " [Greyhounds] never be walked without a leash as they are sighthounds and always ready for a good chase."
|
|
|
Post by megan on Apr 23, 2013 21:08:35 GMT -5
I have question for y'all. What's your take on the term "Bully Breeds"? I'm noticing more shelters and advocacy groups/rescues using it. I did an informal research project on what people think that term means, which breeds they include, where they got the information from, and why they chose to include those breeds. The results were really interesting, and I'm writing them up in a blog post I'm working on. Thoughts? I use the term "bully breeds" often, although I'm cautious as to who I am speaking with. If I'm talking to folks in rescue who understand the terminology to not be a reflection of the term "bully," I use it. But if I'm talking to folks who are less involved in rescue, or who are less knowledgeable about dogs, canine behavior, breeds, breed traits, etc., I tend to not use the term because people take it the wrong way. I think it's a matter of knowing your audience. If your goal is to educate the uneducated, it's a potentially risky term that people may make up their own definition for...
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 23, 2013 21:11:23 GMT -5
no one except stupid haters says a pit bull was created to kill, except in the generic sense of being a terrier. This formula, so loved by the haters, is a red herring. Why pit bull advocates have a problem explaining reality to people baffles me. And then using this nonsense as some kind of argument against the reality of breed traits.. well, that's the problem right there. OK maybe I missed this and if so I apologize, why do you think original the APBT was bred for if not for fighting? ... Like someone said above, we might just be going in circles. going in circles because you won't read what I actually write. I wrote they weren't bred to "kill". Of course they were bred to fight (or rather, bred to have a heightened arousal around other dogs, which could be manipulated into fighting) Bred to FIGHT is not the same as bred to KILL. The object of dogfighting was not for one dog to kill the other.. though that certainly happened.
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 24, 2013 11:01:56 GMT -5
no one except stupid haters says a pit bull was created to kill, except in the generic sense of being a terrier. This formula, so loved by the haters, is a red herring. Why pit bull advocates have a problem explaining reality to people baffles me. And then using this nonsense as some kind of argument against the reality of breed traits.. well, that's the problem right there. Emily, where are people saying that breed traits don't exist? You argue against this, but I'm not sure who is saying this is the first place. all I can say in response is and also and also You and your crowd "only" say that breed traits don't matter in any important sense and that if anyone talks about breed traits, they are the same as those who support BSL.
|
|
|
Post by Kim Wolf on Apr 24, 2013 11:04:39 GMT -5
Emily, where are people saying that breed traits don't exist? You argue against this, but I'm not sure who is saying this is the first place. all I can say in response is and also and also You and your crowd "only" say that breed traits don't matter in any important sense and that if anyone talks about breed traits, they are the same as those who support BSL. Ok, this is no longer a civil or productive conversation. I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 24, 2013 11:32:28 GMT -5
of course Kim. You're always asking questions and demanding answers. So how about you answer one:
What ARE the breed traits of the APBT?
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 24, 2013 11:40:19 GMT -5
Finally jumping back in on this. It has been a CRAZY week for me, to say the absolutely least It seems counter-intuitive, but I’ve found that the more we try to protect the dogs and prepare for worst case scenarios, the more we open them up for scrutiny when something does go wrong. I've had more success meeting people/the public where they're at, instead of hoping they'll be where I want them. This statement really bothers me. Kim, you are so so so new at this.
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Apr 24, 2013 11:40:34 GMT -5
Fox Terriers and Foxhounds were created to hunt down and kill foxes, Rat Terriers (and many other Terriers) were created to kill rats, Dachshunds were created to fight and kill badgers, Greyhounds and other sight hounds were created to chase down and kill rabbits and other prey animals. There are countless breeds with bloody pasts, why would anyone want one of those dogs!? I think working breeds are very different and are not targeted by BDL because you don't hear about irresponsible Fox Terrier owners and Foxhound owners allowing their dogs to maul people. Not saying they do not exist, the media doesn't care about other dogs, but I am sure you realize this. Do Rescues who have Dachshunds, Fox terriers or a greyhound tell them their breed is not for every owner and they typically have high aggression and not to go to dog parks? (I have a friend who adopted a greyhound, and she wasn't told any of that) I haven't searched out this confirmation, but it seems they take my philosophy of a dog is not the right dog for everyone, not a greyhound shouldn't be for everyone. I suggest you do read the stuff put out by advocates for those breeds. Because their advocates certainly DO say they're "not for everyone". If not for the dogpark reason. Advocates for MOST breeds say "they're not for everyone". Because of the "breed trait" thing... If no one told your friend for example that greyhounds need to be in a fenced yard, need occasional outlets for expending bursts of energy and may have high prey drive towards small animals (in addition to being very happy to lounge most of the time on a couch), she was done a disservice.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 24, 2013 13:55:11 GMT -5
What would be lost if, instead of talking about issues that come up in shelter dogs and making that specific to what the breed might be, we instead frame these issues in terms of dog issues? I always work within the framework of normal dog behavior, and breed-specific behavioral tendencies (cuz it's ALL dog behavior) second. I also take into consideration tenets of behaviorism and why orginisms behave the way they do in the first place. I think it is very important for people to be aware of the possibility of dog-directed aggression problems in this breed. I've lived with a lot of dog-aggressive dogs, and I've worked (professionally) with more. I'm ALWAYS trying to balance what science tells me with what I know empirically. It's not like I've been doing this a couple years. I've got, gawd, a LOT of years working with dogs behind me (ugh, don't even wanna think about how many, tbh LOL) CLOSE to 20 with this breed alone (shelter dogs AND purebred/linebred/inbred dogs). I gotta put SOME stock in my own experiences. And besides, the science DOES support the view that it is NOT JUST ENVIRONMENT. Genes "interact with" environment. I will never ever ever, barring some truly mircaulous scientific discovery, believe that breed/genes has no impact on behavior. We are back to "it is impossible to ID a breed". I do not buy it, and I do believe breed influences behavioral TENDENCIES (moreso or less-so). Depends. I've found that biases easily form within the circles of certain "types", when those are the ONLY types you work with. When I see certain behavioral tendencies in Pit Bulls from ALL walks of life and from different bloodlines, then I can start forming some solid view about the breed. You can also forget easily, if you ONLY work with one breed, that MANY breeds, esp. related ones, and dogs in general, may perform certain behaviors. However! IF a person has only worked with Bull Breed-type dogs from shelters, I'm sorry, I cannot necessarily put TOO much stock in their opinion on APBTs as a whole. I just can't. IF you've (hypothetical person) never actually spent multiple years with a bonafide APBT, who are you to tell me I'm the one that doesn't know the breed and has no right speaking about breed specifics?
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 24, 2013 13:58:17 GMT -5
I don't understand how so many can think visual ID is ok and use other breeds as examples if thy do it pit bulls must be able too and in the next thread argue they feel the APBT should be treated different in regards to owners and how they are managed or adopted out. Can't have it both ways people lol either visual is bunk or all dogs breeds should be treated special and different (just like those who support BSL feel.) Just don't get why it's ok that adopters can be told special care is needed but not ok for them to have special consideration in regards to breed identification. It's not about "pit bulls are the only dogs that need breed specific care considerations". It's about "RPB WORKS WITH PIT BULLS SO WE AREN'T TRYING TO EDUCATE ABOUT ALL THE CRAP NEO GUARDIANS, FOR INSTANCE, HAVE TO DEAL WITH". Jeez. I honestly, don't see why this is so hard. (P.s. I cannot even IMAGINE placing a Neo without giving the new home some breed specific instruction. How irresponsible can a person be to not do so!)
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Apr 24, 2013 14:00:00 GMT -5
I don't understand how so many can think visual ID is ok and use other breeds as examples if thy do it pit bulls must be able too and in the next thread argue they feel the APBT should be treated different in regards to owners and how they are managed or adopted out. Can't have it both ways people lol either visual is bunk or all dogs breeds should be treated special and different (just like those who support BSL feel.) I don't even know what this means.
|
|