Pit bulls suck� Is it in their genes?

This is a rather difficult issue and as a dog lover, I admit to being somewhat conflicted about it. I have known many very good pit bulls that were very well behaved and playful and loving animals. But they had good, responsible owners who were not only well-meaning, but experienced and knowledgable about how to train a dog. It is difficult to blame the genetics of the breed for the disposition of all of them. That is kind of like saying one race of humans is more violent than another. I also don't think pit bulls have been intentionally bred for violence for a very long time. I also think, in terms of overall statistics, that German sheppards are responsible for the most bites on people.That said, they are not a breed for novice owners, anymore than the breed I own. A German short-hair is far too athletic, active and demanding for any inexperienced owner to manage. I think a lot of the trouble with pit bulls IS the owners, owners who don't have a clue how to effectively train the dog, read the dog, and avert the development of problem behaviors. Other owners I have known have intentionally encouraged the aggressive bahvior. They are intrinsically more dangerous than other breeds, but that doesn't mean they should all be exterminated. Just as we would argue for humans, I think every dog has to judged on an individual basis, not the breed. Unfortunately, it is a breed that also appeals to agressive owners that sometimes encourage agression inthe dog.Now the conflicted part. I once owned a Rottweiler - sheppard cross that was one of the most beautiful and faithful dogs I ever owned. But she was intrinisically aggressive - not to me, her trainer, but to other dogs, and later to other people. I recognized this and worked hard to break her of all aggressive tendencies. It seemed to work, but she was really intelligent and began to try and assert herself more and more whenever I was not present (I was the only one she really respected and feared). She finally tried to kill my hound dog while I was away on a trip and I was going to have her put down, but a member of my wife's family wanted to take her. The dog eventually ended up attacking a paper boy and was put down. So I am now convinced that even the best intentions of an experienced trainer are not going to really eliminate aggression in a dog that has that tendency. But the owner has a huge responsibility for the dog's demeanor and disposition - if they can't control it when they are WITH the animal, they shouldn't own it.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-27-2005 06:23 PM

The point about aggression toward other dogs versus people is a very good one. Two entirely different things for a dog. Most pits seem naturally aggressive toward other dogs, but not necessarily people. It's something novice owners may have no real appreciation for until their dog jumps on another dog. All owners should be aware of this. I read FliesOnly's original story when it happened and the scenario was all too familiar. However, that said, individual dogs of many other breeds may express the same tendency. Owner, know thy dog.

I disagree, it is not a difficult issue at all[/qs] On the surface, no. It would not be my breed of choice either. But given that pit bulls do exist, those exisitng dogs deserve evaluation on their individual merits and should not all be tarred with the same brush. I guess we could outlaw breeding them, but until that happens, I would argue that pit bull puppies deserve a chance at good homes same as any other dog. But how many of these were, directly or indirectly, the fault of owners? It would be difficult to assess, but I tend to hold the owners responsible for their dogs actions more than the dogs themselves. Remember, this is a breed that attracts some very roughneck owners who actually want a vicious dog and make sure it becomes one. True. More likely to try and lick you to death. But my point is you have to research what you want in a dog to have an idea what kind of issues you will be dealing with when you get a particular breed. So the biggest part of the problem in my view are pit bull owners who don't do that before they get one. Some of them definitely are, but many are not. My point was that my dog Kila was a mutt, not a pit bull. Very intelligent, very well behaved, very well-trained from a small puppy. But she had a vicious streak below the surface that no amount of training could eliminate. She was very slick too, because she would never demonstrate it in my presence - only in my absence, which made it dificult for me to assess her true ptoential for aggression. Certain dogs have a vicious streak, and pitbulls are probably more likely than most to have one. There are genetics involved, but it can happen with a lot of different breeds and crosses that otherwise have many redeeming qualities. As Roxrkool said, it is the responsibility of the owner to recognize these traits in their dog at early stages and deal with them appropriately, up to and including having the animal put down.
Why own one? Well I said I was conficted about it, but only because there are some very good pit bull puppies out there that would make good dogs for responsible owners. They don't all deserve to be put down because of some irresponsible owners. That's not what I meant. It is important for an *owner* to recognize the difference between aggression toward other dogs and aggression toward people because the approach to remedial training is different. In one case, it becomes more important to socialize the animal with a variety of people at an early age. In the other case, the emphasis is more on socializing them with other dogs. Of course, not all dogs will respond to the training and those that do not should probably be put down. But it can happen with many different breeds and it is, once again, the owner's responsibility if it goes uncorrected. Yes, in fact I have helped to separate TWO of them on one occasion. Fortuantely they were more concerned with killing each other than the humans trying to separate them. There is a genetic component to their tendency to attack other dogs. The was bred to fight for many years. If they do not repond well to socialization at an early age, they should ALWAYS be on a choke chain and/or muzzled in public situations where they may come into contact with other dogs.I think your outlook is a bit colored by your understandably traumatic experience, but I would still argue that your beef is with the owner of that dog (rather than the breed, per se) for not (1) knowing the tendencies of his/her own dog and (2) maintaining total control of it in a public situation.

Not true. You work with your dog and socialize it with other dogs from an early age. These tendencies are quite observable from my experience. You watch for them, correct them, and take precautions if you are not confident in your dog's reactions to other dogs. Any pit bull or Rottweiler should always be chained on a public run if it has ever shown aggression toward other dogs. It is their responsibility to know. You appear to be granting these owners far too much latitude. They did not 'know' there dog as they should have. And how can you be sure they are telling the truth anyway? Not a fair comparison. I don't agree with anyone keeping wild animals in captivity except professional zoos. You are correct that actual owners should step up to the plate here and defend their positions. I have never owned one, but I have had several friends that did and I often had good fun with their dogs. Hence my somewhat defensive position. I liked those particular dogs and had a lot of fun playing with them.I suspect various people have a range of motives, and not all are good motives either, as I have intimated. Some people just want an intimidating animal, others a potential weapon. At the other end of the spectrum are people who may simply save a young pit from being put down because they feel sorry for it. Unfortunately, dog ownership is sometimes a question of chance opportunity. It's not always a premeditated choice. Hopefully Rox will come back and give us some more insights.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-28-2005 02:35 PM

All good points and along the line of what I was saying earlier.The owner is a huge factor in the equation of the dog's temperament and behavior and many unsavory characters gravitate to owning 'attack dogs' of one sort or another. These people, at their worst, either mistreat or neglect the animal (this alone can result in viciousness, as pointed out above) or may even intentionally train the dog to be aggressive.
I say owners are to be held responsible - not the breed. I have just known too many pits that were great dogs - but of course they all had responsible owners.

I can't quite agree with this. Pit bulls can be trained as easily as any dog and more easily than most. The training techniques and objectives are the same. A lack of trainings is not what is going to make the dog vicious as long as it is well treated and loved. All that will suffer is obedience. It is neglect, mistreatment, or intentially bad training that is going to create a problem dog. First, that is an overly strong generalization. Some pits display this tendency (many do not), but so do many other breeds. I have known a number of German Shepards that were extremely aggressive toward other dogs - and people as well. However, these were usually ones that spent most of their lives chained up in a yard. Second, most pits will lose the tendency if they are properly socialized with other dogs from early on. Any that retain it should always be on a chain aroudn other digs. All these things are the owner's responsiblity. It is the irresponsible owners that should be banned from ownign ANY dog, not just pitbulls. Hell, we take kids away from their own parents if they abuse them.