TexasCHLforum.com

In response to TAM. Part of the problem is that people seem to think every dog thinks alike and that there is some sort of inclusive behavior one should respond with. The response you had with that dog is indicative of probably the most common one you would get from dogs. You turned yourself from prey into a competitor and even if the dog was sure it could take you they wouldn't want to to be injured so would tend to avoid fighting. It's the same instinct that allowed 40 lb herding dogs to fend off wolves that could obviously outfight them. Some breeds however have been bred for generations to have a greater prey drive and other traits, like what some trainers call hardness, which has a dog responding with primarily aggression to any sign of aggression from an adversary. Police trainers come across this with dog who are difficult to get to release once they bite. Dealing with dogs can be as fully complex as dealing with people and I honestly think most people who think they understand dogs are just fooling themselves. Understanding the influences and possible drives sure, but actually knowing the dog?

SRVVR wrote: My point about MDA and Everytown still stands by the fact that I am seeing several overreactions by uninformed individuals. I have read thousands of posts from members here about how those that are anti-gun do not spend the time to study or understand what it is they are so passionately against, yet in this one thread, I am seeing the exact same generalized comments against dog breeds from people that would crucify someone for saying the following against guns:

First unless the members who you are quoting are one of the "Thousands" posting then it means squat and even if they were they are not calling for banning dogs just that a dog loose is a danger. When guns run loose by their own accord then we will have some parity in statement. Now your example misses.

Then we have some comments that are based on myths and half-truths, which are subsequently perpetuated when no one checks their facts when they read or hear something.

EEllis wrote:One of my big issues with pits is that some of them just don't exhibit the normal warning signs before they attack and once they get a lock on someone they can be amazingly hard to get off. I get that many breeds are called pits now days and with the getto dog breeding it gets even more complicated but that to me just says that people who go on about pits being such a great breed are less than objective.

Keith B wrote:The bad rap pits have gotten is that they have been used as fighting dogs because of their extremely powerful jaws and body strength. Unlike a dog with less jaw strength if they bite, the pressure exerted is much stronger and will do more damage. If you train them to be mean and want to fight or attack, then they will. A dachshund can be trained to be mean and attack too, but unless you are laying on the ground and let them chew on you for awhile, they are not gonna do much damage.

EEllis wrote:

Keith B wrote:Pit bulls are no more prone to attack than any other dog breed.

Several things wrong with that. One, as mentioned, pits are several different breeds and a loose grouping of crossbred dogs so universal statements are obviously lacking. Two pit bulls are bred for fighting dogs not people. Historically aggressiveness towards handlers would get a dog culled but violence towards other dogs and animals were prized. Pits may not have a above average rate of attacks on humans but they do have an increased rate of attacks on other animals . Then you also have the fact that they can cause increased damage over other dogs the same size and combine that with atypical behavior patterns toward things they do attack, which makes it harder to tell when a pit might be aggressive. Well, concern about pits is only common sense. Then people say that "Their" pit, which may only be fractionally pit at all or not even any pit just having some of the same features that pits have, is a peaceful placid animal. So?

http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only thing wrong with my statement is that I said "lock" when I could of said bite but the rest is accurate and I stand behind as correct. Your link contradicted nothing I said at all.

Keith B wrote:Pit bulls are no more prone to attack than any other dog breed.

Several things wrong with that. One, as mentioned, pits are several different breeds and a loose grouping of crossbred dogs so universal statements are obviously lacking. Two pit bulls are bred for fighting dogs not people. Historically aggressiveness towards handlers would get a dog culled but violence towards other dogs and animals were prized. Pits may not have a above average rate of attacks on humans but they do have an increased rate of attacks on other animals . Then you also have the fact that they can cause increased damage over other dogs the same size and combine that with atypical behavior patterns toward things they do attack, which makes it harder to tell when a pit might be aggressive. Well, concern about pits is only common sense. Then people say that "Their" pit, which may only be fractionally pit at all or not even any pit just having some of the same features that pits have, is a peaceful placid animal. So?

One of my big issues with pits is that some of them just don't exhibit the normal warning signs before they attack and once they get a lock on someone they can be amazingly hard to get off. I get that many breeds are called pits now days and with the getto dog breeding it gets even more complicated but that to me just says that people who go on about pits being such a great breed are less than objective.