Like it’s been said before in the thread, this is the consequence of no kill shelters. As much as I am a bleeding heart for animals, shuffling a bunch of dogs genetically programmed for violence to random families instead of putting them down is a danger to the public. Local shelters have been trying to pass off pits as random ass breeds due to ordinances banning them, I’ve seen everything from “Cane Corso mix” to “Anatolian Shepherd mix” (I’ll give them credit for being more creative than “Lab mix”).
There’s a reason why my landlord asks for pictures of your dog rather than just going off of what breeds you put down.
Wyświetl załącznik 8861066
I find it interesting how the doodle craze has started to die down, as a lot of the intakes besides the obvious tend to be doodles listed as Schnauzers for whatever reason.
There seems to be a very common, fundamental misunderstanding of dog behavior and history here. If we wanted to put down dog breeds dangerous to humans we'd be putting all livestock guardian and german shepherds to sleep, not actually pitbulls. But to get into why, it'll take a little more context.
Dogs, by default, do not recognize humans as friends. They understand "other dog", "prey", and "threat". The goal of socialization is to have puppies associate humans with positive things like attention and food, to create a fourth category that separates us from the other three. That's why you'll commonly see dogs with behavior issues that never involve humans. A dog might rip apart another dog with zero warning, but never snap at a person. Or, they might chase and kill the neighborhood cats and other small animals but play with little kids. They understand that we are "part of the pack" but also that we are not dogs; it is, from the dog's point of view, a completely unique frame of mind which was bred into them on purpose (or by accident; the wolves which were able to place us in this "box" were the ones we fed and kept alive, essentially). We are kind of in the dog category, but not quite. However, differences do exist breed-to-breed.
There are some breeds of dog for whom this fourth category doesn't fully develop. They may attach themselves to
individuals, like how you could train your heavily prey-driven dog to accept your own housecat but it will still kill everyone else's cat, but they do not put every human into a special box. Examples of these breeds are shiba inus, almost all livestock guardians, and german shepherds. These breeds are notoriously hard to rehome, and will readily bite or attack a person as much as any other creature. There's a reason why german shepherds are used as police and personal protection dogs - you can, rather easily, train them to bite people on command. This is actually something that is almost impossible to do with most dogs that have been socialized.
Poodles (and by extension, doodles) and other similar breeds are known to bite people, but not because they've been poorly socialized or are trainable to bite on command. You've never seen a guard poodle, after all, have you? Despite their high intelligence, which could make them very beneficial in a kind of defense or home invasion or police operation scenario. Why not? Because these breeds are neurotic - high strung, high energy, prone to random outbursts, difficult to control or read cues from, prone to extreme anxiety from many sources which all culminates in an extremely nervous and jittery dog (think of the infamous chihuahua shakes). Which, of course, makes it prone to biting or otherwise lashing out in self defense at random times for seemingly (to us) no reason. They do not do well under pressure, and would be almost as likely to bite you as they would be to bite an intruder; not out of aggression toward humans, but because they're panicking and their brain has short circuited. I want you to keep that behavioral profile of a neurotic dog in mind.
So let's look at pitbulls. What are they, what were they bred for, what are the breed personality traits? Let's just narrow it down to American Pitbull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and closely related breeds for simplicity. They came from a combination of "bull" stock - big, burly, strong - and "terrier" stock - small, relentless, highly loyal. This created a fatass type of dog with lots of bulk, a strong jaw, and a temperament that made them extremely loyal and stubborn. They were originally bred for blood sports like bull and bear baiting - they bred individuals who could latch onto these huge animals on command, and who would not let go until they were told to release, or until they died. Once bloodsports were generally outlawed, they instead moved them to be used in dogfights, which were easier to hide. To reiterate, they created a relatively small but very heavy dog which was loyal to the point it would die. Extremely stubborn - once it is doing something, that's just what it's doing. Unlike most breeds who have some level of self preservation, a bull and terrier would throw itself at a target of any size and strength pretty much regardless of any other factors if it was told to do so. Back then, that was basically the only thing they were bred for, specifically.
Now, to dogfights. If you've never seen or aren't familiar with the format, let me explain how they generally work. You have two people with dogs who want to have them fight. They go into the little area or even an arena if the place is fancy, and rile them up. When they're ready, they release the dogs who fight each other, usually until someone calls it off (fights to the death are rare). But the dogs don't really understand that... so how do you separate them? The handlers get right in there, grab their dogs, command them to let go, and drag them away. Yeah, they are putting their hands and faces right next to two vicious, snarling dogs mid-combat who are trying to kill each other. You'd think this sort of thing frequently leads to horrible injuries on the part of the human handlers, but you'd (unfortunately) be wrong. How is that possible?
Because there is a trait that was bred into pitbulls which is almost entirely unique to them - they lack redirection aggression. Have you ever seen an agitated dog be touched and instantly spin around to bite whatever touched them, even if it clearly wasn't what was making them upset? That's redirection aggression. Pitbulls do not do this. They were specifically bred to not do this, because as it turns out, scumbags don't like getting a taste of their own medicine and if a fighting dog turned on them they killed it.
This leads us to today. I've already explained their genetic origin and traits, but what about personality? Your typical pitbull is stupid, low energy, low anxiety, not prone to random outbursts except towards other dogs (they have high prey drive/dog aggression). Not exactly the profile for a neurotic dog like a poodle, so are they dangerous because they're more like a german shepherd, lacking that fourth category to put humans in? As it turns out, studies say no.
On behaviorial tests, pitbulls score about the same as golden retrievers, sometimes even better. Most people who interact with dogs frequently, who own a pitbull, or who know someone who owns a pitbull, describe them as stupid but extremely sweet. It's extremely common to see comments online to the effect of "I know pitbulls are crazy toddler eaters, but I had this one friend with a pitbull who actually bucked the trend and was somehow the nicest dog ever...." Even genetic tests which correlate certain genes to human aggression have found that pitbulls... really just don't have them. In fact, given their reputation, you might wonder why police and guard dog trainers don't use pitbulls. And well, they've actually tried - but every single pitbull flunked the K9 academy (except one) because
they could not get them to bite people. So what the fuck, then?
To put it simply, it's the media's fault. No, I'm fucking serious. Pitbulls have had a reputation for decades of being big tough dogs owned by gangsters, they're used in BLOOD SPORTS OMG!! They're status symbols for mega scumbags (or virtue signaling retarded women), and the media has been cooking up a shitstorm over it because that's just what they do. Non pitbulls are labeled as pitbulls so they can put "pitbull attack" in the headline, I've seen one dog attacking another dog labeled as a "pitbull attack" as if it attacked a person. They take horrific cases - like one of a woman who had her arms and legs torn off by a rescue dog - and label it as a pitbull. No pictures, no proof, but an interesting detail in the article - the dog in question outweighed the adult woman by
over 150 pounds. Pitbulls don't even reach half of that weight, to say nothing of outweighing something by that amount. Yet the media is almost entirely silent when other dog breeds kill or attack people. This leads to over-representation in the media, and now any dog with a vaguely buttcrack shaped head is a pitbull, leading to even more reports of "pitbull attacks". But if I'm arguing that pitbulls are generally friendly, not neurotic, and not prone to human aggression, why do they show up so much in statistics?
A couple reasons. One, lists of dog bites will put "pitbull" at the top with "german shepherd" next to them... comparing sometimes dozens of breeds next a single breed. Two, people are absolutely shit at identifying dog breeds - even experts who deal with dogs all day long like vets, shelter workers, dog catchers, and groomers can only successfully identify a dog's breed something like 30% of the time. And when you go to laymen identification, it drops to about 2%. Three is the common factor among over 70% of all dog attacks - they involve a "non resident" dog, I.E. the dog is
feral. It's just a dog they keep in the backyard and sometimes throw food at - it's never been socialized, it's never had the chance to have that fourth category form in its mind. It has reverted back to a wild animal, one which is, in the pitbull's case, completely unafraid of anything it sees as food or threat and will attack any animal with zero warning as a result. I believe the bite and kill statistics are overblown, unfairly presented, and innaccurate but I also believe that pitbulls still top or nearly top the charts for dog attacks. I also believe this is entirely because of their reputation and the type of owners who get them. Either it's a tough guard dog, who needs to be entirely isolated from human contact from a young age so that it is actually willing to bite an intruder, or it's a cute wittle innocnent angel babby who could NEVER hurt a fly and you just don't understand my nanny dog's twauma. The first person lets a feral, highly prey driven dog essentially on the loose, and the second person will ignore all red behavioral flags and treat their dog like a human child. Both lead to bites and maulings.
It's unfortunately the case that if a puppy never develops this fourth category through socialization, they will never develop it. If you fail to socialize a dog young, it will always put you into the "not dog" category, which could put humans at risk of being considered prey or threats in the future. This crucial step is important for EVERY breed of dog, not just the "dangerous" ones. Fun fact - I have never been bitten, but I have been almost bitten by three dogs in all my time fostering. One was a great dane, and the other were labradors - not one labrador on two separate occasions, two completely different labradors. It's rather ironic that the breed which would be theoretically one of the safest as a family dog - low energy, no redirect aggression, small/medium size, VERY strong aversion to biting people - is the one that, in practice, is currently the most dangerous. Not because they are genetic monstrosities, but because the vast majority of pitbulls you see today weren't properly socialized and are just as likely to see your toddler as a snack than as a companion. I always tell people NEVER LEAVE A DOG ALONE WITH A CHILD because it's still just an animal and can act in ways that don't seem logical to us, and I stand by that regardless of the dog's breed. I reccomend extra caution for livestock guardians and german shepherds just because their threshold for biting people, even when properly socialized, is very low. I also reccomend extra caution when your dog is intelligent or anxious, like a poodle - not because they're overly aggressive, but because children are loud and quick and handsy and unpredictable and highly likely to spook the dog into a bite. I have the least caution (though still sizable caution, mind you) for pitbull types, as they are normally very hard-pressed to bite humans, even when being directly attacked by humans. Of course, this is only with all things being equal in socialization and training, I would definitely trust your average lab much more with a child than your average pitbull, considering everything.
This also isn't running defense for shelters in inaccurately (whether intentionally or accidentally) portraying what a dog's breed is. I've mentioned before my hatred for basically all shelters, and it's because of their usual attitude.
"All dogs deserve a second chance, they're innocent little angels!!" Yo, Karen, it's a fucking DOG. It doesn't understand good or evil, right or wrong, it doesn't feel remorse after biting somebody and it can't learn from its mistakes.
"I don't want someone to be prejudiced because of her breed!" Well, her breed is incredibly important because it informs of her likely personality and behavior, as well as a decent indication of how she might have been rasied and thus how much of a threat to people she might be.
Among other issues, of course, but these were probably my most hated commonly held shelter volunteer opinions. They are just as dangerous as that guy keeping a feral dog in his junkyard, except they purposefully try to plant these timebombs in people's homes. I'm not just talking about pitbulls, most shelter dogs carry risk because of their treatment history.
I'm also not part of the pitmommy brigade. These are conclusions I've come to after a hell of a lot of experience and research. The idea that pitbulls are super dangerous toddler eating commandos because of their genes would be hilariously wrong if it wasn't so damaging. Yet if you don't agree that pitbulls are born as furry nuclear missiles aimed at a daycare, people seem to think you aren't aware of, or disagree with, the statistics and reality of how many people pitbulls maul. Pitbulls, like many other breeds, are perfectly fine if you raise them normally.
The problem is, people don't. I think any dog past its socialization stage who fails to be properly socialized should be culled. That would remove at least 70% of dog attacks, and the vast majority of dogs in shelters. I have dared to breathe this opinion only a few times, because I am always met with a look of horror and confusion. Dogs aren't human babies, they don't get second chances because they can't learn and grow from second (or third, or fourth) chances. Your dog doesn't look guilty after raiding the trash because feels bad, he looks "guilty" because he's afraid of you being upset at him. He will do it again as soon as he feels like it unless you set firm enough boundaries that he doesn't feel safe to cross. A dog who never learned to put people into a "dog adjacent" social category will percieve all people as threats or as food if given the chance, regardless of breed, and you cannot train this out of them. They will be dangerous forever.
