question about camping with a pittbull

[gpeade]

The wife and I just bought a camper and want to get back into camping. This time around we have two dogs. Both are rescue "mutts" and one is part Pitt. First campground I called to make a reservation won't allow him because he is a "dangerous" breed. If any of you own bulls you know the BS and aggravation that goes along with this.
My question for you guys is this...what is your experiences with different campgrounds? Now I know I can say he isn't a Pitt but do campgrounds generally ask for vaccination records? These state he is a Pitt-mix so I can't hide it then.

How do those of you with larger dogs deal with this issue?

Thanks

[BCSnob]

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

[BCSnob]

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.

[BB_TX]

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.

[toedtoes]

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.

[toedtoes]

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.

[toedtoes]

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.

[Pawz4me]

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.

[BCSnob]

The pig was not trained to herd; sheep were found that could be 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.

[toedtoes]

Pawz4me wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
Pawz4me - as I mentioned above, the dog's purpose accounts for a majority of that difference. Shepherds, rotties, and even pits are brought home to "protect" and "guard". As such, they are put in a backyard and left. Unsocialized, uncontrolled, and often illtreated. To blame the breed in those cases when it is the owner who is failing is wrong. But that's what happens.

I don't disagree with what you posted, especially the shamefulness of keeping a dog as a glorified yard ornament. But the second study BCSnob posted contradicts the belief that bites from protective breeds are more common. According to it dogs who were obtained for "companionship and other reasons excepting protection" were 2.21 times more likely to bite than dogs obtained for "protection and other reasons excepting companionship."

I suspect that's related to the amount of time the dogs spent interacting with humans. Less time equals less chance of a bite occurring. Dogs who are kept in a backyard often get little/no human interaction, which limits the chance of a bite occurring.

The study goes on to state that dogs who spent 13-24 hours a day inside were about twice as likely to bite as those that spent 1-13 hours a day inside,and that both groups of dogs were at higher risk of biting than dogs who weren't allowed inside at all. Again, more time for interaction=more chance of a bite occurring.

(Sorry for not quoting directly from the study. I tried many times and different ways but the system kept saying the formatting was invalid, no matter what I did.)

Amount of time interacting has an impact, but PROPER interaction is a much more important factor. What studies never show is how the person was interacting with the dog before they got bit. We're they teasing the dog, scaring the dog, abusing the dog. If asked, they would all say "no, it just bit me out of nowhere". I suspect in 98 percent of those instances that was a lie.

[toedtoes]

BCSnob wrote:
Do breeds have the genetics for certain behaviors (pointing, herding, guarding livestock, aggression, etc) or don’t they? If they don’t then any breed should be trainable to perform and function; a basset can be trained to herd. A greyhound could be trained to retrieve a shot duck.

Yes, there are genetics involved. But as with most things, genetics isn't everything. Environment, training, socialization, etc., all have an impact on the way a dog will behave.

It may be a lot easier to train a border collie to herd, but that doesn't make it impossible for a basset to do it. Heck, they taught a pig! :):

[Pawz4me]

toedtoes wrote:
Pawz4me - as I mentioned above, the dog's purpose accounts for a majority of that difference. Shepherds, rotties, and even pits are brought home to "protect" and "guard". As such, they are put in a backyard and left. Unsocialized, uncontrolled, and often illtreated. To blame the breed in those cases when it is the owner who is failing is wrong. But that's what happens.

I don't disagree with what you posted, especially the shamefulness of keeping a dog as a glorified yard ornament. But the second study BCSnob posted contradicts the belief that bites from protective breeds are more common. According to it dogs who were obtained for "companionship and other reasons excepting protection" were 2.21 times more likely to bite than dogs obtained for "protection and other reasons excepting companionship."

I suspect that's related to the amount of time the dogs spent interacting with humans. Less time equals less chance of a bite occurring. Dogs who are kept in a backyard often get little/no human interaction, which limits the chance of a bite occurring.

The study goes on to state that dogs who spent 13-24 hours a day inside were about twice as likely to bite as those that spent 1-13 hours a day inside,and that both groups of dogs were at higher risk of biting than dogs who weren't allowed inside at all. Again, more time for interaction=more chance of a bite occurring.

(Sorry for not quoting directly from the study. I tried many times and different ways but the system kept saying the formatting was invalid, no matter what I did.)

[BCSnob]

Do breeds have the genetics for certain behaviors (pointing, herding, guarding livestock, aggression, etc) or don’t they? If they don’t then any breed should be trainable to perform and function; a basset can be trained to herd. A greyhound could be trained to retrieve a shot duck.

[westernrvparkow]

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.

[maddog348]

When I was 1 1/2-2 yr old I was bitten in the face by a Cocker Spaniel. They were somewhat larger in the early 1940's.


Note I was trying to pick him up ...my bad....

[Pawz4me]

BCSnob wrote:


So what is your analysis of the second report I provided?

I've only had time to skim a little bit of that one so far. One thing that jumped out is that it seems like a very small sample size? Also it seems that they lumped in bites occurring during play. To me an accidental bite while playing with a dog is a whole different thing than an aggressive or defensive bite. But I can see how people who don't really like dogs might take the view of a bite is a bite.

That's as far as I've skimmed in that one so far.