Olden days when dogs were 'ok'

[runlikethewind]

Hello

Is it possible to have a discussion on this? It was posted in reference to a Dog's Today blog about pitbull attacks.

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2012/01/saving ... riend.html

From what I understand, the author states that pit bulls are inherently aggressive. She also feels that dogs are getting progressively more volatile (any breed of dog) and that she can remember a time when kids played out in the street, with dogs, running around, being hugged etc, no one trained their dogs and there were no real concerns of bites/maulings etc. She says that IF there was a dog that was 'aggressive' - ie reported by a neighbour, then there was an understanding that the dog ' was got rid of'.

The articles implies that we make too many excuses for aggression in our dogs and that we should not- because today, we are expected to read body language, have a Phd in Animal Behaviour or whatever she says and that all this is just not realistic.

What do you think?

I feel a bit uncomfortable that, if this is true, dogs are becoming more unhinged. Bur we cannot go back to dogs running loose and getting on with each other and mucking around with kids in the street etc. I feel though that we have come a long way and, with our understanding, we have learnt to help these dogs who are aggressive - so that they are no longer PTS. I do realise the point of the article that not every one is good with understanding dogs as we are on here though. The article makes me confused and question things

[Erica]

Dogsbite is notoriously biased. Honestly I wouldn't trust anything they say. :/ They're about the same level as PETA on my "trust" scale; that is, I feel they are not even worth paying attention to as they are just...well, you said how you feel about the article - that's the way their whole existence makes me feel. Pit bulls are one of my favorite breeds; I haven't owned one myself, but I do know several, and have never had any issues with them. They're all, actually, rescues, so their past is a great big unknown, but their current owners pay attention to them, have them decently trained, and don't let them run amok.

Basically, the point of Dogsbite is to say "AAH PIT BULLS ARE MONSTERS DON'T TRUST THEM THEY'LL EAT YOU KILL THEM ALLLL!" So, there's that.

Does the author even cite references to the golden years of loose dogs? Does she point out that perhaps we hear more about dog attacks because we can hear about them from the other side of the world because of the internet? I just...am not eloquent enough to point out all the issues I have with the article.

[Ari_RR]

There was a lot of misconceptions 40 years ago... Cigarettes were prescribed by doctors as medicine. Children talked to strangers. Stange dogs were assumed to be friendly.

We know better now.. Including our attitude towards strange dogs. This is not dogs becoming unhinged. This is society getting more informed and educated.

As for pit bulls...
"From 2005 to 2011, pit bulls killed 127 Americans."
Let's assume this is a fact, which makes pit bulls statistically the breed most likely to kill a human. Ok.
But let's put this in perspective... In 2007 alone there were over 18,300 homiside victims in the US (according to official US Census Bureau data). Multiply this by 7. Over 130,000... that's about the number of Americans killed by other Americans in the same period of time. So, let's not overdramatize the pit bull stats. Pit bulls, being the most dangerous breed, are far less dangerous to Americans then other Americans.

Kids should not talk to strangers. Kids should not smoke. Kids should not run up to and pet strange dogs.

We know now that a strange dog may be dangerous. But this doesn't mean that EVERY strange dog IS dangerous. Most are not. Author playing with mutts in the dirt outside of his house doesn't mean that "dogs were safer" then. It's just unlikely for someone to get hurt by a neighborhood dog.. Was unlikely 40 years go. Still unlikely these days.

But not realizing the danger is very much different than truly being safe. 40 years ago author's neighborhood wasn't much safer in terms of dogs, I am afraid.. Or, if you prefer, it's not much more dangerous these days. People were just unaware back then. They are aware now. Awareness of danger makes people uncomfortable, and some feel the urge to take quick actions... Like eliminating the breed that's statistically most likely to kill. That's what the author is suggesting.

But - there were over 130,000 murders in the US over the same 7 years.. Perpetrated by about 130,000 murderers. There has been statistical analysis done on them - gender, age, race, other profile parameters. And therefore there is a known profile, which is statistically more likely to kill other humans... I hope that the author of the article stays with the dog subject, and doesn't attempt to offer a quick solution to prevent homisides.

[Erica]

You're more likely to be killed by sharks, falling coconuts, or YOUR OWN PARENTS (assuming you're a child) than by a pit bull. There are hundreds of more dangerous things - pools, trampolines, etc, but that doesn't mean they should be outlawed. People should control their risks and their environment as much as they can. Don't go swimming without a lifeguard, don't let your kids jump on the trampoline without supervision and rules, you teach your children to not approach stray dogs and you teach yourself about your dog before and after you get one.

Another thing to keep in mind - most people (including animal control officers!) can't identify a pit bull from a lab/boxer cross or other random crosses and mixes. I know someone who was evicted from their apartment because their landlord thought their dog was a pit bull. It was a dachshund mix (no APBT or pitbull type blood in it).

And the fact that "pit bull" is a label that comprises some large number of breeds, which really throws off statistics. If you counted up dog bites/fatalities from "guard dog breeds," I'm sure the number would be larger than the individual breeds' stats (I mean, obviously).

[JudyN]

The reason we didn't hear about dog bites 40 years ago was that dogs were expected to bite on occasion - if a child went home and told his mum a dog had bitten him, she'd ask what he'd done to upset the dog. Nowadays the dog is branded as a monster, its owners as dangerously negligent, and it is assumed that the dog should be put down. Plus the victims will be wondering just how much they can sue for...

[Nettle]

The reason we didn't hear about dog bites 40 years ago was that dogs were expected to bite on occasion - if a child went home and told his mum a dog had bitten him, she'd ask what he'd done to upset the dog. Nowadays the dog is branded as a monster, its owners as dangerously negligent, and it is assumed that the dog should be put down. Plus the victims will be wondering just how much they can sue for...

That's about it. I remember a kid running to his ma and saying "The F---ing dog bit me". He got two clouts: one for swearing and one for annoying the dog so much that it bit him

I haven't read the link as it isn't a group or a publication I respect. But what I make clear to anyone who asks is that there is a huge difference between man-aggressive and dog-aggressive, and that there are breeds which are genetically predisposed to be aggressive to either, both or neither. And that any dog will be aggressive in the appropriate circumstances, as will any person.

I can go back even longer than 40 years we were told not to talk to strangers, dogs were allowed 'one bite', dogs with training or temperament issues were shot, and - you very rarely saw old dogs.

[runlikethewind]

Does the article carry some truth in it that bully breeds (if they do have any issues) are more likely to latch on and do a lot more damage then another breed of dog with the same issues? I don't have any experience of bully breeds - the ones I've met out and about are seriously friendly and all have been great with me and dogs.

There is even a bloke who walks in the remote areas (I am sure he has a pitbull) - he's a very large looking bully dog, thick head, very wide jaw. He's an entire male and my entire male met one day. You know...you are always on tenterhooks because you hear of them locking on and not being able to prise them off but they were great together. Really polite sniffing. So I only have had good experiences with bully breeds.

[Ari_RR]

Yes. Pit bulls in particular may latch on and not let go.. That's why there is a reference to a "stick" In that article - used to insert into pit bull's mouth to pry it open if it latches onto another dog.
I do let my entire male meet other big and bully breeds. Most often it goes ok, but not always. The key for me is to be very close by and observe them very closely, so I can break up the interaction at the first signs of tension - growling or staring at each other, etc. Now that I am better at reading dog's body language, I can (I think) take some calculated risks here. But I would not just let my boy simply approach a strange pit or a Rottweiler on his own. It happens from time to time, noone is perfect, but when it does - i run over to supervise the encounter.
However, I wouldn't let him approach a strange husky either, or great Dane, or Bernese mountain dog, or any dog for that matter, without me being near by. This has nothing to do with pit bulls, really... I just don't really trust strange dogs, dont trust strange owners, and I don't trust my own boy to behave nicely either to be honest.

[Erica]

I feel this article is a much better one (though I admit I am biased! ). Bonus points for it because it actually cites its sources and one of them is Victoria herself!

[Nettle]

Some breeds of dog that are really sweet with people have been bred to fight other dogs and IF the 'right' circumstances present, they WILL do this, and they punch above their weight.

Some breeds of dog have been bred to guard against people and so even if generations of them haven't been used to guard, the instinct is still there, and the ability.

This HAS TO be acknowledged. Many of these dogs never have the wrong buttons pressed, but we need to know what can happen if they do.

[runlikethewind]

The more I think about the above article, the more sensationalist I think it is.

I think also it is sad in some way to think that in the olden days, if a dog showed any sign of aggression, he was PTS. I think this shows the author believes this is what should happen still.

My friend likened this to mentally ill patients (I am not saying aggressive dog are mentally ill; just using an analogy). In the olden days, these people would be incarcerated and subject to 'treatment'. We have come a long way now - in compassion and learning. We HAVE also done so with dogs but we have a lot further to go to find the true compassion and understanding there.

[jacksdad]

The more I think about the above article, the more sensationalist I think it is.

No kidding. I couldn't get through the entire thing for all the BS.

[rnor1120]

I own an ex-fighting pit bull and I love having my buttons pushed like this . I was going to study for anesthesiology but I think I'll take a break.

My dog went from going insane at the site of other dogs half a football field away to successfully cohabitating with a weeks-old puppy and a chihuahua. He's never bitten or shown aggression towards a human being. He's allowed strange children to reach into my car window and pet him on the head. I had a drunk friend wrestle him to the floor and put him in a headlock without reacting. He doesn't need restraining at the vet's office when he gets his shots. He eagerly greets strange men on the street. He walks by fenced dogs barking at him without flinching.

Do all pits behave well like this? No. Do all other breeds of dog behave well like this? No. But besides my dog, I've never met an aggressive pit bull or mix, neutered or intact. Growing up I was aggressively chased into a lake by a black lab. The meanest dog I've ever met was a Golden Retriever. Stereotypes, whether they're about dogs or people, suck. Plain and simple.

"Pit bull owners, it seemed, were a vocal and aggressive group. Most were young, female, under-educated, yet web savvy. With no practical knowledge of basic animal husbandry or the science of genetics, they eagerly believed, and repeated, any Internet source that supported their worldview. A fabricated history of the pit bull breed sprouted up on a few Internet sites and was embellished and repeated over and over until it became "fact".

That one's my favorite. I'm a young, web-savy female. I'm not under-educated, I'm currently in pursuit of my DVM. I've taken courses in animal behavior and researched the topic religiously, not just on Google but in books (OMG those still exist?!) as well. I've looked at arguments on both side of the pit bull issue, both the pros and the cons. The con side has their share of fabricated facts "repeated over and over again" as well. I love it when they insist that pit bulls have jaws that lock and they can't let go even if they want to (no breed of dog has that ability), or that they have the strongest bite of any dog breed (actually that's the Rottweiler, followed by the German Shepherd), or that their brains are too big for their cranium and the pressure in their head causes them to snap (actually this is called cerebral edema and they would die if this happened for a long period of time).

Instead of the age-old common sense method of trying to match families with dogs whose behaviors would be a good fit with their lifestyle, rescues and shelters began trying to "sell" the public on pit bulls.

I actually have a good friend who runs her own bully rescue. Their adoption process requires character references, vet references, and a home visit, as well as being able to meet every member of the family, including babies, dogs, and cats.

Do I think that pit bulls make the perfect family pet? As with any breed, it depends on the family and it depends on the dog. If you've got parents that are willing to train and supervise both the dog and the kid, yes, I think it could be a very good situation indeed. I always get wary when I see stories of kids being mauled. I'm sure there are some dogs that just apparently snap. But how many parents are willing to share their story with the 5 o'clock news or the local paper and willingly admit, "Yeah, I wasn't really watching my kid and my dog that closely, so I can't be certain what happened..." It's a whole lot easier just to say that the dog snapped for no apparent reason at all. Kids should be taught from an early age how to interact with dogs, and if a conflict arises it's time to make a decision in everyone's best interest - either rehome or start training. Not every dog that attacks kids in their home are pit bulls either! I've read stories where the family pomeranian mauled the baby to death!

And what of attacks on children playing in their own backyards, or riding a bike on their own street?

And what of the owners, who either deny that their dog is aggressive or know their dog is aggressive and still allow it to roam the streets?

What, in essence, makes a good pet? According to pit bull advocates, dog owners need "training and education" to own a dog. Is that even remotely realistic or practical? Should every dog owner be required to have a PhD in animal behavior, take special training classes, learn to read their "body language", and carry special equipment (like a break stick for prying your pit bull off of another dog)?

No, but anyone wanting to adopt any pet should spend some time researching. Anyone with half-a-brain and a computer or a library card can manage that. Before I bought my first snake I sat down and carefully researched each species' needs, temperaments, expected lifespans, etc so that the both of us would be happy. Before I brought Chance home (and before I knew he was aggressive) I researched what I needed to do to make a pit bull happy and healthy. And when his aggression became apparent, I sought help.

Does the average American family -- the "good enough" dog owner -- really have the time, the desire, and the money to invest in managing a dog that if anything goes wrong, will pose a deadly threat to their neighbors?

I no way do I consider myself an expert dog trainer. I have spent no more than $100 USD on a collar, leash, harness, muzzle, clicker, and an obedience class. I'm currently a full time veterinary student. I spend 4-5 hours per day in classes and another 2 on studying, and yet I MAKE the time to manage and train my dog. I don't allow him to roam. I don't take him into situations where I know there's going to be an issue. This is common sense! If people don't have the time and money to care properly for a dog, they should get a fish!

In the world of the pit bull fanatic, society must change to accommodate their fetish for a dangerous dog breed.

Society is what MADE them a dangerous dog breed. There's a quote floating around there somewhere about "dangerous dogs" throughout the generations. Before the pit bull it was the rottweiler. Before them it was the German Shepherd. Before that it was the Doberman. I remember when Disney's "101 Dalmatians" came out, there was even a spike in Dalmatian bites in my state. When one dog breed becomes more popular to own, there are irresponsible bone heads who breed them without any regards for health, behavior, or temperament. And then the puppies are listed on Craigslist and given to the first $150 that walks through the door. So we have irresponsible breeders giving pups to irresponsible owners who "OMG HAVE TO HAVE ONE" only because they want to look cool or because they're the "sexy" breed to own. They put chains on their necks, cut their ears, and neglect to socialize or train them with other dogs or people. I had a professor who used to work for the government as a vet that worked at the dog bite quarantine place in Wyoming. They had a 6 month-old pit pup come in for attacking the neighbor kid on his bike and wasn't vaccinated for rabies. On initial exam, she could tell by the puppy's erratic behavior that something wasn't right. By the end of the quarantine period, the puppy was a normal dog, curling up in her lap to sleep, playing with vet techs, and playing with the other dogs when he was out of his watch period. She later found out that the puppy's owner encouraged his son and the neighbor kid (that he attacked) to beat the dog with sticks and rocks to make him aggressive, because "that's how pit bulls are supposed to be." She had to give the dog back to his family.

Growing up in 60's and 70's, dogs were a common sight in my working class neighborhood.

I was going to talk about this, but I think everyone else has hit the nail on the head. And I wasn't alive then . Here's another thing though. I recognize that not every dog with a behavioral problem was abused/neglected/fought/used as bait/starved/beaten/etc. But was animal welfare a really hot topic then? How many people were arrested and their animals seized and put into the humane society to be rehabilitated? How many people were chasing down dog fighters, breaking up their rings, and rescuing their throw-away dogs? How many people pampered and coddled their dog to the point where it was unsocialized with other people and animals? And how many people, through no fault of their own, got a dog that turned out to have some behavioral issue, stuck it out to train him? I wasn't alive then, but I can imagine that the human-dog relationship has changed a bit.

The rest of the article is just sensationalist crap. Honestly, you could throw a dart at a list of dog breeds and come up with a grocery list on why they're dangerous, unpredictable, can't be owned, blah blah blah. Any breed of dog requires responsible ownership - obedience training, not allowing it to roam, early socialization, etc etc etc.

Alright, back to anesthesiology.

[jacksdad]

It is important to realize this article was written with an agenda in mind. It was written not to bring awareness to the poor breeding practices by gangs and dog fight rings or puppy mill type breeding that is damaging the pit bull lines. It was not written as a call for people to use common sense and train and socialize there dogs, particularly pit bulls since that was the focus of the article.

This article was written to do the following

Create/reinforce a new term, Dangerous Breeds. This is being done by leveraging the media focus on the Pit Bull and some unfortunate and tragic incidents.

Next, the article calls into question why any reasonable, responsible, normal person would want/need a Pit Bull. It reinforces this by equating owning a Pit Bull with being a criminal or participating in criminal activity or at the very least being socially irresponsible.

Then it takes the step of trying to end debate before logic and reason and truth can become a part of the debate by stereotyping the people who might stand up for Pit Bulls or call BS on the article. This is done by calling into question the "pit defender's" intelligence, education, compassion. How could anyone defend a dog who kills children? if you defend the pit, you are callous to the victims and clearly not smart because anyone smart, educated, compassionate can clearly see these dogs are a menace to society.

There is no "arguing" with or changing the mind of, educating people who write articles/arguments like this. they have their mind made up, and they will NOT let the truth, or reason, or facts get in the way of their beliefs. Because once you have proven all their "facts" and "points" to be wrong or baseless, they fall back on the "victim". Articles like this are targeted to the great majority of people who do not have a "bone" in the "fight". It's meant to grab their attention and bring them on board.

My suggestion, work to educate that "majority in the middle". that is the only way to neutralize people like who wrote this article. it's the only way to fight breed based bans/legislation.