[…] you can’t overcome 200 years of artificial selection.
Is this you?
The way you put your argument, you seem to state there is no possible way to solve the issues this breed tends to show more propensity to exhibit. Selective breeding is one way and the best way to remove from the breed undesirable traits, as a root cause. But this does not mean it is the only one and extensive, structured, conscious training and conditioning, along with correct housing, can and will drastically reduce the risk of bad events. This breed is composed of individuals, which is often, conveniently, overlooked.
Pit Bulls are not exclusive to bad episodes with horrendous outcomes. Many other breeds are listed as controlled or banned, from country to country.
What Pit Bulls have against them that many have correctly stated is the tendency to attract the worst kind of humans.
What exists, recognized by consensus, in objective terms and following scientifically verifiable conditions, is the definition of potentially dangerous breeds. These are breeds that, due to intrinsic physical characteristics can inflict serious injuries or cause death, in the event of an attack to others dogs or human beings.
In my barbaric country these breeds are, in alphabetic order:
– American Staffordshire Terrier
– Dogo Argentino
– Fila Brasileiro
– Pit Bull Terrier
– Rottweiller
– Staffordshire Bull Terrier
– Tosa Inu
Along these, any cross between these breeds and between these breeds and others are automatically deemed as potentially dangerous. No dog is deemed dangerous because they are of one of these breeds; they are taken as having the potential to be and as such to have one, certain conditions must be met. Minors can not own one, no one under the age of 16 can walk one, the animals have to use a functional muzzle when in public spaces, the owners must not have criminal record and must obtain a basic certification from our police, where people are taught a bit more at length all that I have written here, along with some legislation and responsibilities. Oh, and the owner of a dog of one of these breeds must have a civil responsibility insurance.
In order for a dog to be deemed effectively dangerous, the dog needs to either attack or kill another dog, animal or human being *out of their home or property in a fashion that they were not provoked or act in defense of their family.
There have been a good number of dog attacks on humans on my country, a few by dogs of these breeds. When investigated, it is common to find out the dogs are either abused or mistreated, were conditioned to be aggressive or were never properly socialized and trained to model behavior. But as a last, anecdotal, thought: in my town, most dogs declared dangerous due to attacks on human beings are often under 10kg. Why? Because small dogs are cute. They are small, they can’t/won’t/never hurt no one. Then an unruly dog, used to get their way anyway, always, chomps someone’s legs or ankle or hand and then all things go haywire.
You know where 95% of problems related to dogs usually start from? On the other end of the leash.
Why? Why defend a blanket blunt solution after undergoing so much time to develop a proper, clear, definition to what a potentially dangerous animal is and what an actually dangerous animal is? Why label an animal as a danger just because it was born?
Dobermans, Boxers and Great Danes were viewed as dangerous breeds in the 90’s.
Belgian Mallinois and German Shepherds garnered a bad reputation due to their association with police and military forces.
Catahoula Leopard Dogs have killed people in the US.
Border Collies and Australian Cattle Dogs are well known to bite, particularly children, due to their herding background.
Even Golden Retrievers and Labradors have been deemed dangerous at some point.
And then there are all the other breeds, less known, that have maimed or killed and never got any attention for it. And all the other breeds that are as powerful or more than the list I shared and just haven’t met the criteria of having attacked someone and got the bad press. There are far more powerful dogs in the world than those in that list, breeds specifically developed to chase, hunt and/or fight other animals that are not in it. In Italy, one of my national breeds has been listed as dangerous and controlled; no such concern here as no bad episodes have occurred and we have a higher number of such dogs here, pure bred and crossed.
But you did said something correct: casually.
The biggest issue is most people never bother to properly care for their animal companions. They are pampered as puppies, while they are cute and docile, then more easily managed by being chained or confined to a back yard or a fenced area and overlooked. They become a nuisance, something that consumes time and energy, people say they “don’t have”.
That is what causes most of the problems regarding dogs.
Is this you?
The way you put your argument, you seem to state there is no possible way to solve the issues this breed tends to show more propensity to exhibit. Selective breeding is one way and the best way to remove from the breed undesirable traits, as a root cause. But this does not mean it is the only one and extensive, structured, conscious training and conditioning, along with correct housing, can and will drastically reduce the risk of bad events. This breed is composed of individuals, which is often, conveniently, overlooked.
Pit Bulls are not exclusive to bad episodes with horrendous outcomes. Many other breeds are listed as controlled or banned, from country to country.
What Pit Bulls have against them that many have correctly stated is the tendency to attract the worst kind of humans.
Another breed are XL bullies. Pitbulls aren’t the only dangerous dog.
Okay. Let’s put things in order.
What exists, recognized by consensus, in objective terms and following scientifically verifiable conditions, is the definition of potentially dangerous breeds. These are breeds that, due to intrinsic physical characteristics can inflict serious injuries or cause death, in the event of an attack to others dogs or human beings.
In my barbaric country these breeds are, in alphabetic order:
– American Staffordshire Terrier
– Dogo Argentino
– Fila Brasileiro
– Pit Bull Terrier
– Rottweiller
– Staffordshire Bull Terrier
– Tosa Inu
Along these, any cross between these breeds and between these breeds and others are automatically deemed as potentially dangerous. No dog is deemed dangerous because they are of one of these breeds; they are taken as having the potential to be and as such to have one, certain conditions must be met. Minors can not own one, no one under the age of 16 can walk one, the animals have to use a functional muzzle when in public spaces, the owners must not have criminal record and must obtain a basic certification from our police, where people are taught a bit more at length all that I have written here, along with some legislation and responsibilities. Oh, and the owner of a dog of one of these breeds must have a civil responsibility insurance.
In order for a dog to be deemed effectively dangerous, the dog needs to either attack or kill another dog, animal or human being *out of their home or property in a fashion that they were not provoked or act in defense of their family.
There have been a good number of dog attacks on humans on my country, a few by dogs of these breeds. When investigated, it is common to find out the dogs are either abused or mistreated, were conditioned to be aggressive or were never properly socialized and trained to model behavior. But as a last, anecdotal, thought: in my town, most dogs declared dangerous due to attacks on human beings are often under 10kg. Why? Because small dogs are cute. They are small, they can’t/won’t/never hurt no one. Then an unruly dog, used to get their way anyway, always, chomps someone’s legs or ankle or hand and then all things go haywire.
You know where 95% of problems related to dogs usually start from? On the other end of the leash.
Based country. Euthanise them all I say.
Why? Why defend a blanket blunt solution after undergoing so much time to develop a proper, clear, definition to what a potentially dangerous animal is and what an actually dangerous animal is? Why label an animal as a danger just because it was born?
You don’t educate humans, dogs get punished.
There is no good reason to own any of those breeds casually
Oh, I like that reasoning.
Shall we widen the lens then?
Dobermans, Boxers and Great Danes were viewed as dangerous breeds in the 90’s. Belgian Mallinois and German Shepherds garnered a bad reputation due to their association with police and military forces. Catahoula Leopard Dogs have killed people in the US. Border Collies and Australian Cattle Dogs are well known to bite, particularly children, due to their herding background. Even Golden Retrievers and Labradors have been deemed dangerous at some point.
And then there are all the other breeds, less known, that have maimed or killed and never got any attention for it. And all the other breeds that are as powerful or more than the list I shared and just haven’t met the criteria of having attacked someone and got the bad press. There are far more powerful dogs in the world than those in that list, breeds specifically developed to chase, hunt and/or fight other animals that are not in it. In Italy, one of my national breeds has been listed as dangerous and controlled; no such concern here as no bad episodes have occurred and we have a higher number of such dogs here, pure bred and crossed.
But you did said something correct: casually.
The biggest issue is most people never bother to properly care for their animal companions. They are pampered as puppies, while they are cute and docile, then more easily managed by being chained or confined to a back yard or a fenced area and overlooked. They become a nuisance, something that consumes time and energy, people say they “don’t have”.
That is what causes most of the problems regarding dogs.
German Shepherds should require a comprehensive licence gained from training IMHO