Touchy Subject

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
put it like this, it's not really like how they are brought up. some dogs trust humans more than others no matter what, every dog is different and they say that all living land animals are 80% instinct and if you didn't have much trust in something\someone and your main instinct is to be defensive what else are you meant to do? they have a lock jaw and the head sway to tear you to shreds. sure it's the animals fault and people need to have more precaution on all dogs in my opinion.

i think it's unfair allthough if they were reintruduced as being legal people would need to take more precaution.
 
No, it's more like if they decided that since Olive Pythons have more capacity to hurt you when they bite, they not only banned them from being bred and sold, but also insisted on taking your Olive and killing it, even though it had never bitten anyone in its life.
I'm sure you would be doing more than "sulk like a child" if your beloved family pet had been siezed and destroyed with no alternative. I know several people that have had this happen. The few people out there with the available funds have fought it, but it's a long and expensive road.


How is it anything like that? Time and time again they are proved to be vicious towards people. Perhaps it's all a big conspiracy where it is actually sausage dogs attacking people and the pitbulls are just planted in an effort to tarnish the breed :rolleyes:.

All the people who support it answer me this with ONE single word. Yes or No
Were pitbulls bred for aggression? Is that a genetic trait?

I bet not a single supporter for the breed can answer honestly without trying to ad some type of justification.
 
honestly how many times have you looked in the newspaper and read about pitbull attack and wen you look at the pic of the dog it aint a pitbull at all not even a cross breed.

people these days think if looks like a pit or staffy and it bit me so it must be a pitbull.
 
Fair! Why?
Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"
 
cross breeding animals to get what you want doesn't always mean they will have that trait, especially wen its a personallity trait.
 
How is it anything like that? Time and time again they are proved to be vicious towards people. Perhaps it's all a big conspiracy where it is actually sausage dogs attacking people and the pitbulls are just planted in an effort to tarnish the breed :rolleyes:.

All the people who support it answer me this with ONE single word. Yes or No
Were pitbulls bred for aggression? Is that a genetic trait?

I bet not a single supporter for the breed can answer honestly without trying to ad some type of justification.

It's exactly like that. Just because an Olive python has the capacity to cause more damage with a bite, doesn't mean it will necessarily bite. Just as a pitbull has the capacity to cause more damage with their bite, doesn't necessarily mean they will bite.

Show me some evidence (newpaper articles where a photo of the actual offending dog has been published instead of a stock photo of a snarling dog will be accepted) where pitbulls have been proven "time and again" to be indiscriminately vicious. The fact is that crossbreeds OF ALL TYPES are responsible for most attacks. It is also fact that most dog attacks are provoked, though not necessarily knowingly. If you know anything about dogs at all, you will know that dogs, like people, do not generally lash out violently without giving some kind of warning first.
As for your question, no. Pitbulls were not bred for aggression.
They were bred for high drive, tenacity, strength, willingness to please. If you have ever met a pitbull or a staffy (because yes, genetically they are very similar), you will know they are extremely devoted to their owners. They are also very headstrong. They are also generally much more tolerant (for example of small children poking and prodding them) than other dogs.

Fair! Why?
Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"

Yes, pitbulls were bred to fight. I'm not denying that. They were bred to fight DOGS, not people. They were bred to be able to be handled safely by people WHILE they were fighting dogs. In saying that, various breeds were bred for things that we no longer require them to do. For example, Poodles were bred to be water retrievers. These days, they are predominantly pets. Border Collies were bred to herd sheep, and yes they are still used for that, however there are a huge number of BCs in pet homes where they exist quite happily never having seen a sheep. Just because a dog was bred for a particular purpose does not mean that purpose is the be all and end all for the dog. And you're wrong. It should be "Typical bogan + ANY DOG = kill him boy" ANY DOG is a weapon in the right hands, and you've made your own point moot anyway because by your account, it is the bogan at fault there. The dog is just doing what it's been trained to do.
 
It's exactly like that. Just because an Olive python has the capacity to cause more damage with a bite, doesn't mean it will necessarily bite. Just as a pitbull has the capacity to cause more damage with their bite, doesn't necessarily mean they will bite.

Show me some evidence (newpaper articles where a photo of the actual offending dog has been published instead of a stock photo of a snarling dog will be accepted) where pitbulls have been proven "time and again" to be indiscriminately vicious. The fact is that crossbreeds OF ALL TYPES are responsible for most attacks. It is also fact that most dog attacks are provoked, though not necessarily knowingly. If you know anything about dogs at all, you will know that dogs, like people, do not generally lash out violently without giving some kind of warning first.
As for your question, no. Pitbulls were not bred for aggression.
They were bred for high drive, tenacity, strength, willingness to please. If you have ever met a pitbull or a staffy (because yes, genetically they are very similar), you will know they are extremely devoted to their owners. They are also very headstrong. They are also generally much more tolerant (for example of small children poking and prodding them) than other dogs.



Yes, pitbulls were bred to fight. I'm not denying that. They were bred to fight DOGS, not people. They were bred to be able to be handled safely by people WHILE they were fighting dogs. In saying that, various breeds were bred for things that we no longer require them to do. For example, Poodles were bred to be water retrievers. These days, they are predominantly pets. Border Collies were bred to herd sheep, and yes they are still used for that, however there are a huge number of BCs in pet homes where they exist quite happily never having seen a sheep. Just because a dog was bred for a particular purpose does not mean that purpose is the be all and end all for the dog. And you're wrong. It should be "Typical bogan + ANY DOG = kill him boy" ANY DOG is a weapon in the right hands, and you've made your own point moot anyway because by your account, it is the bogan at fault there. The dog is just doing what it's been trained to do.


So I guess you couldn't answer yes or no because you knew you would either be lying or admitting the obvious. Thanks for proving my point.
 
Fair! Why?
Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"

The Pitbull was not developed or bred to fight, kill and win. This is entirely false and is information that is spread by those who are opposed to the breed. The Pitbull was first developed in England and were used as catch dogs for unruly livestock once they arrived in the USA. They were bred for there athleticism and strength and in latter years some were bred for fighting. The Pitbull is renowned for there loyalty and fearlessness. Contrary to popular belief, dog fighting is a taught skill and not inherent to there nature. Pitbulls are a very versatile breed and because of their makeup, they we adopted to fighting, not developed. The breed is misunderstood, and has gained a bad reputation by irresponsible owners. They are no different to any other domesticated dog in that they are not unstable or have a mean streak.

The breed is not always suitable to city life as they are primarily a working breed, and like any working breed they require stimulation. The Australian kelpie and cattle dog are very well known as biting breeds however because of there build are less likely to cause a fatal attack. Once put to 'work' and sufficiently stimulated Pitbulls become very loyal, tenacious, and willing workers. Trained to fight, they will fight.

I don't deny that dogs that fit the Pitbull profile may be dangerous, however it's ridiculous that misinformation is used as a justification.

Kind Regards

Wing_Nut
 
It's exactly like that. Just because an Olive python has the capacity to cause more damage with a bite, doesn't mean it will necessarily bite. Just as a pitbull has the capacity to cause more damage with their bite, doesn't necessarily mean they will bite.

Show me some evidence (newpaper articles where a photo of the actual offending dog has been published instead of a stock photo of a snarling dog will be accepted) where pitbulls have been proven "time and again" to be indiscriminately vicious. The fact is that crossbreeds OF ALL TYPES are responsible for most attacks. It is also fact that most dog attacks are provoked, though not necessarily knowingly. If you know anything about dogs at all, you will know that dogs, like people, do not generally lash out violently without giving some kind of warning first.
As for your question, no. Pitbulls were not bred for aggression.
They were bred for high drive, tenacity, strength, willingness to please. If you have ever met a pitbull or a staffy (because yes, genetically they are very similar), you will know they are extremely devoted to their owners. They are also very headstrong. They are also generally much more tolerant (for example of small children poking and prodding them) than other dogs.



Yes, pitbulls were bred to fight. I'm not denying that. They were bred to fight DOGS, not people. They were bred to be able to be handled safely by people WHILE they were fighting dogs. In saying that, various breeds were bred for things that we no longer require them to do. For example, Poodles were bred to be water retrievers. These days, they are predominantly pets. Border Collies were bred to herd sheep, and yes they are still used for that, however there are a huge number of BCs in pet homes where they exist quite happily never having seen a sheep. Just because a dog was bred for a particular purpose does not mean that purpose is the be all and end all for the dog. And you're wrong. It should be "Typical bogan + ANY DOG = kill him boy" ANY DOG is a weapon in the right hands, and you've made your own point moot anyway because by your account, it is the bogan at fault there. The dog is just doing what it's been trained to do.


Thank you for proving to me that just like most blind proponents of BSL, you have no willingness to be swayed by facts or have your baseless arguments challenged.
 



This is taken from dogforum.com.au

DOG BITE RELATED FATALITIES 1995 - 2011 (AUSTRALIA)

28 dogs were involved in 11attacks in 1995 and 2011 (sourced from media reports in Australian Newspapers and are therefore not exhaustive. Bite studies indicate at least an additional 6 fatalities during this time)
One dog was involved in 6 fatalities (55%), Two dogs were involved in 2 fatalities (18%), Three to four dogs were involved in 2 fatalities (18%) and 11 dogs were involved in 1 fatality (9%).Six of the dogs were reported to be purebred, five were reported to be first generation cross breeds (both parents identified), with mixed or unknown breeds accounted for the remainder.

Four Rottweilers, and one Rottweiler X were involved in 2 deaths, a breed consisting of only 2.34% of the population was therefore involved in 18% of fatalities (a risk index of 7.69).
Because deaths are such a rare event, these percentages cannot be extrapolated out over large populations.
For example, even one attack by one dog constitutes 9% of the total fatalities, and only the Labrador or combined Pit Bull type dogs even come close to this population level. At these levels, even the Siberian Husky (1.19%) and the Cattle Dog (1.72%) who were involved in one death each appear over represented (with risk indexes of 7.6 and 5.2 respectively).

It is for this reason that dog bite related fatalities should not be used as a measure of a breed’s dangerousness.
One fatality in 1995 involved 3 Rottweilers and 1 Rottweiler X German Shepherd who were at large and killed a neighbour (the landlord of the dog’s owner).
This incident clearly demonstrates that owner negligence was the primary factor, and the owner spent time in jail as a result.

Rottweilers consisted of approximately 6% of the total dog population at that time.
The fatality in 2007 involved a Rottweiler dragging a 9 week old child from their crib, emphasising the need to ensure dogs do not have access to unattended infants.

Only 1 of the fatalities occurred during the last 10 years where the population is estimated to be around 15,500 pure bred Rottweilers, and a further 62,000 possible mixed breeds.

Breeds involved: Rottweiler (4), Siberian Husky (1), Cattle Dog (1), Rottweiler X German Shepherd (1), Dingo X Labrador (1), Pit Bull X Mastiff (1), Great Dane X Mastiff (1), Great Dane X Bull Terrier (1), Medium size mixed breed (3), Large mixed breed (3) and Giant Mixed Breed (11) including Greyhounds, Mastiffs and Irish Wolfhounds.

Australia has an estimated dog population of 3,400,000 and an average of 1.1 fatalities per year (33 over the last 30 years), equating to one death per 3,090,909 dogs.

The United States has an estimated dog population of 77,000,000 and an average of 30.29 fatalities per year (212 over the last 7 years), equating to one death per 2,542,093 dogs.

You are slightly more (22%) likely to be killed by a dog in the United States.
Most risk analysis base their findings on deaths per human population, however I feel that dogs involved per dog population is a better marker (if you half the dog population, but the human population stays the same, you will still likely see a 50% drop in bites).
Given that breed popularity of Pit Bull types (estimates around 5-10%) is similar between Australia and the United States, and the risk of fatalities is only slightly higher in the United States, if breed were really the problem, we should have seen between 14-22 of Australia's 33 fatalities being attributed to Pit Bull type dogs.








In answer to your other question about agression - yes

So were german shepards, rottweilers and the like. Why arent they banned?

Pitties weren't bred for human agression but dog agression and dogs that showed human agression were usually put down as they couldnt risk being in the ring with these dogs.

They have a sad history and a bad rep and yes majority you see here are crossbreeds but in the right hands and a loving but firm environment, a well trained and socialised bull breed is more trustworthy than a maltese or chihuahua.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point wing nut is making is that they were not originally bred as fighting dogs, however later in their development as a breed they were used for fighting and therefore were bred for this purpose, but were not initially developed for this purpose. For example German Shepherds were bred as sheep herding dogs, but are now more commonly used as guard dogs (in a working role, most of them are actually pets :p)
 
Fair! Why?
Pitbull = selectively bred to fight, kill & win. Yes that is what the breed was deveoped for.
Typical (& I said typical not all) bogan + pitbull = "kill him boy"

You sound like a bogan. They were bred to be 'bull dogs' where the pit bull grabs the bull by the nose so the person Castrating doesn't get gored.
 
I think if you are to have them they should be on a similar license to venomous snakes. Must have years experience and be recommended by a reputable breeder. Must wear a muzzle out should be checked on by someone to make sure they are fine.
While I get any breed can be aggressive you can not argue that pit bulls don't have a higher predisposition to aggression than most dogs. Seeing that they can do much more damage than most as well they should be under strict restrictions. That's my opinion.
 
So wait, if their aggression is genetic doesn't that then mean if your brought up an albino Darwin the right way you could "bring" it up so it would become coloured? Using a dog forum as proof....... Lol
 
So wait, if their aggression is genetic doesn't that then mean if your brought up an albino Darwin the right way you could "bring" it up so it would become coloured? Using a dog forum as proof....... Lol

By your logic now that I've had a bottle of milk in the fridge for 3 days, I'm eligible to become Queen of the world. That makes about as much sense as what you just said.
 
Ratios and statistics.
Isnt that what you asked for??
So it came from a dog forum. Where are your ratios to show they are all genetically bad?
 
Fair.
People in Australia with "Pitbulls" make me laugh. I have never seen a single true Amercian pitbull in Australia, all are American amstaff crosses owned by bogans. And if you showed an American breeder of pitbulls a picture of the crap we have here they would themselves laughing.

All of this "Ban the deed, not the breed" crap obviously have very little understanding of genetics. More to the point they are banned....get over it and move on. Same as I can't own a King cobra, I don't sulk like a child I just get over it and move on.
was going to reply but after reading the whole thread realised someone is just seek attention........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dogs are domesticated, reptiles are not.
Agression is an emotion not a skin pigment.
Your darwin point is null and void ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top