question about camping with a pittbull

YIKES !!!!!

BCSnob wrote:
Perhaps what is needed is a more extensive test than the canine good citizen; one that includes bits of Schutzhund to assess for aggression and self control when presented with stimuli that would trigger human aggression.

Amen to that. Just read of a lady killed by her 2 "boxer mix" dogs: she apparently enjoyed "wrestling" with them in the yard - and for whatever reason, something set them off with some serious aggression :-(
clicky

I agree with you BCSnob. You cannot assume any behavior with any dog regardless of breed. There are many factors that can warp a "standard" behavior. But, just as you cannot assume that a particular dog of a breed cannot behave in a certain manner because of genetics, you cannot assume that a particular dog of a breed WILL behave in a certain manner because of genetics. You have to evaluate each dog on its own merits.

BCSnob wrote:
I should stop here since I have taken this way off topic

But it's very interesting off topic stuff. I remember a bit about your field of expertise, so knowing your thoughts on testing for genes that affect behavior is interesting. I admit I don't always understand nearly as much as I wish I could, though.

I should stop here since I have taken this way off topic

The end result was not the same; the pig appeared to be able to herd because the sheep did not behave like normal sheep. Just because and actor that plays a doctor on TV looks like a doctor under very specific (contrived) conditions does not mean that actor could diagnose and treat anyone.

Training does play a role; however, it is a lot less than most people are willing to accept or understand.

Breed bans (which I do not support) are/will be ineffective because genetically controlled behaviors are not linked to appearance (the basis of all modern concepts of what makes a breed). These are different sets of genes. This is why there is a distinction between bench and field bred dogs. Breeding for appearance does not guarantee the behavioral genes are retained. Worse still, in breeding for appearance the behavioral traits are not even assessed.

Since the behavioral genes are not assessed; dogs of a breed (with a particular appearance) may or may not have all of the behaviors for which a breed/type was initially developed. Some of these functions required the right mix of a complex set of behaviors to be useful for the function. This is why not all dogs purposely bred for a function will become useful for that function even with appropriate training.

Pet owners (and researchers studying breed behaviors like aggression) look at dogs (based upon appearance) and believe they will have the behaviors of a particular breed when no one has ever tested the breeding pairs or the offspring for these behaviors. They have no idea what behaviors these dog will have when they are exposed to the situations that elicit these genetically controlled behaviors. Some of these reactions can never be consistently controlled with training; they are as basic as flight-or-fight.

Not testing for the genes controlling behavior is no different than not testing for genetic diseases; you have no idea what your dog has or what you are passing onto the next generation.

Thinking any dog can be trained to behave a particular way despite the behavioral genes of that individual dog is a recipe for disaster. Thinking every dog that has the same appearance (modern definition of a breed) will also have the same behavior genes is naïve.

Putting aside all the reports, studies, statistics, dog background/breed, child age, etc,, etc. it still all comes down to one thing. Some dogs, no matter the breed, are going to bite. And large powerful dogs are going to do far more serious physical damage than small dogs. And have the potential to cause death. And do. And that is what puts them in the “dangerous breed” category.

BCSnob wrote:
The pig was not trained to herd; the sheep were trained to perform.

I’d place genetics at 80% and nurture at only 20% based upon my experience with border collies and the behaviors in 18 generations of sheep.

But the end result was the same. The point is that just because a dog is or isn't "bred" for a behavior doesn't make it impossible or guaranteed. It may be more or less likely, but not absolute.

Banning breeds ignores that. It assumes that the genetics is all that matters. In so doing, it denies an individual dog who is very good and allows a dog who is a problem. And that results in identifying a new "breed" to ban.

Pawz4me wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I suspect in 98 percent of those instances that was a lie.

Or the person not being fluent in dog body language. Or being fluent but still missing the signs immediately before a bite occurs. It happens.

That was included in the other two percent.

westernrvparkowner wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
It wasn't the breed that was going to make the dog dangerous, it was the owner.

As long as we allow people to use the excuse "it's the breed", we will always have these problems. Instead, we need to focus on the individual parings of dog and owner.

This thread is about parks allowing in certain breeds of dogs. If you have a screening protocol that could be used to exclude bad pet owners, I would be happy to consider implementing it and allow those dangerous breeds, irrespective of the insurance guidelines. But we all know that is impossible without either infringing people's rights and privacy or running afoul of numerous anti discrimination laws.
Until it becomes possible to judge the owners, we are left with making judgments on the dogs. That means the large and sometimes aggressive breeds will be singled out for exclusion. Deciding between the benefits of allowing an owner of a breed excluded from insurance coverage to stay against the potential of the business to lose huge amounts of money in an uninsured loss is an easy decision to make.

I don't disagree with you. As a park owner, you have to do what you can with what you have.

But as a society, we need to change our views on this stuff. It has gotten better but we have a long way to go. Abused dogs are being removed from homes, where before they were "property" and the abuse was allowed to continue.

Now we have to require obedience training for all dogs. We need to set standards on that training. We need to enforce it. We need to enforce backyard breeding bans. We need to put some responsibility on legitimate breeders for placement in bad homes (good breeders don't sell to anyone with the money).

As our population increases so does the dog population. We can't keep going by simply banning breeds. It will end up with no dogs at all. Each of the breeds on that list went through a "macho dog" period where people got them because they wanted a tough dog. They soon move on to the next breed. Pits have been popular in this area because of the dog fighting. If they are banned out of existence, then another breed will take its place. We have to solve the problem with the people.