A certain aggressive portion of people DO think that pitbulls are violent dogs, so they take them on and train them to be aggressive dogs
Pitbulls are strong as hell, so when they do act aggressively they cause a lot of damage
The real answer is to do something about the bad owners, because they give the whole breed a bad reputation. Continually saying that pitbulls are not a problem ignores this point.
The real answer is to do something about the bad owners, because they give the whole breed a bad reputation. Continually saying that pitbulls are not a problem ignores this point.
Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If the bad owners are giving the breed a bad reputation, then the problem isn’t the breed. It’s the owners. What point does that miss?
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog’s handler in various ways without the dog reacting>
Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It’s not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says “in the face of a threat.” Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn’t step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren’t able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
I think the results are a bit skewered because based on what I could find out these tests are done voluntarily by the owner. And obviously, if you own a “dangerous” breed and they are misbehaving you aren’t going to take the test.
I highly doubt 95% of randomly selected Belgian Malinois would pass the test. They require a ton of training and without that they wouldn’t pass.
With Golden Retrievers you will have more people undertake the test without undergoing proper training of their dog. Because they seem fine in daily life.
Pitbulls are the most abandoned dog breed. Without proper training they are a danger to others. German shepherds are similar and many people underestimate them but Golden Retrievers are most often fine even with suboptimal training.
The reason many of us want to ban pitbulls is because there are too many bad owners. It’s the same reason many of us want to ban guns. There are too many people who shouldn’t own guns or dogs. And ofcourse compromises are welcome, such as requiring certificates to own certain dog breeds. I think it would even be ideal to require it for every breed.
Pointer: bred to point, naturally will point birds with 0 training
Heeler: bred to corral, naturally tries to corral things with 0 training
Retriever: bred to retrieve, naturally compelled to retrieve with 0 training
Terriers: bred to kill small animals, will go sicko mode on rats with 0 training
Pitbulls: bred to fight dogs, oh it’s just how they are raised little hippo would never ever oh no why is there blood everywhere who could have foreseen this
Pittbulls were bred to fight bulls and other large animals for sport or hunting. This required quite a lot of special training. The infamous locking jaw is an adaptation to allow them to hold onto a bucking bull. The dog fighting happened after baiting large animals was outlawed long after the breed was established.
Would you look at that, pitties pass at a higher rate than GSDs, Goldens, and most other highly popular dogs besides labs.
Yet somehow they’re inherently evil or something asinine like that
I think a lot of the problem is two things:
A certain aggressive portion of people DO think that pitbulls are violent dogs, so they take them on and train them to be aggressive dogs
Pitbulls are strong as hell, so when they do act aggressively they cause a lot of damage
The real answer is to do something about the bad owners, because they give the whole breed a bad reputation. Continually saying that pitbulls are not a problem ignores this point.
Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. If the bad owners are giving the breed a bad reputation, then the problem isn’t the breed. It’s the owners. What point does that miss?
I’m clearly saying that the owners are the problem. I’m not sure if you read it clearly.
deleted by creator
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog’s handler in various ways without the dog reacting> Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It’s not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says “in the face of a threat.” Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
deleted by creator
You didn’t even quote a full sentence, so yes it’s out of context. That’s how quoting things out of context works.
deleted by creator
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
deleted by creator
It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn’t step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren’t able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
I think the results are a bit skewered because based on what I could find out these tests are done voluntarily by the owner. And obviously, if you own a “dangerous” breed and they are misbehaving you aren’t going to take the test.
I highly doubt 95% of randomly selected Belgian Malinois would pass the test. They require a ton of training and without that they wouldn’t pass.
With Golden Retrievers you will have more people undertake the test without undergoing proper training of their dog. Because they seem fine in daily life.
Pitbulls are the most abandoned dog breed. Without proper training they are a danger to others. German shepherds are similar and many people underestimate them but Golden Retrievers are most often fine even with suboptimal training.
The reason many of us want to ban pitbulls is because there are too many bad owners. It’s the same reason many of us want to ban guns. There are too many people who shouldn’t own guns or dogs. And ofcourse compromises are welcome, such as requiring certificates to own certain dog breeds. I think it would even be ideal to require it for every breed.
I honestly had assumed most of the ban pit peeps were conservatives. Interesting to see so many on the left supporting this.
Avoiding maulings is a bipartisan issue.
Pointer: bred to point, naturally will point birds with 0 training
Heeler: bred to corral, naturally tries to corral things with 0 training
Retriever: bred to retrieve, naturally compelled to retrieve with 0 training
Terriers: bred to kill small animals, will go sicko mode on rats with 0 training
Pitbulls: bred to fight dogs, oh it’s just how they are raised little hippo would never ever oh no why is there blood everywhere who could have foreseen this
Pittbulls were bred to fight bulls and other large animals for sport or hunting. This required quite a lot of special training. The infamous locking jaw is an adaptation to allow them to hold onto a bucking bull. The dog fighting happened after baiting large animals was outlawed long after the breed was established.
So after they weren’t bred to fight bulls and bears, what were they bred to do?