Ten Years of Hell

my20cents

The idea that I hate pitbulls is a conclusion you have jumped to, I have not once made that statement.

With all due respect none of us insinuated anything about you. All we asked was support backing the false facts you stated such as

"but a fatality is a fatality. A dog that is aggressive to other dogs is more likely to be aggressive towards people, especially young people."

and your other comment about the bite pressure.

If you've had bad experiences with aggressive dogs I am truly sorry for you but it dosnt give cause to spread mass panic through public forums about a specific breed. I have been bitten by a family golden retirever and a Dobie....I hate neither and don't go around spouting nonsense.

So if you want to continue this debate please state refferences or proof of "your findings". You cant just say Oh I went to college and did some tests, LOL. If thats the case you shouldnt have a hard time gathering up official data to back you up so we can give credit where credit is due. However so far all you've provided is a uneducated personal opinion. Here I'll help you start with your research....

The Science of Breed Discrimination

It is often said that some breeds are genetically prone to aggression. A dog's behavior is determined by genetics. Human beings, however, are intelligent, sentient creatures who have free will. Dogs, of course, are also intelligent and sentient creatures, but being 'lesser' animals, different genetics apply to them...somehow.

Of course, genes are genes, whether in humans or canines. So, when politicians start banning breeds under the rationale that some breeds are more inherently vicious than others, they engage in breed profiling. If these same politicians were to say, on the other hand, that black people need to be eliminated because they commit the majority of crimes, that would be racial profiling. Racial profiling is wrong. Breed profiling is, however, somehow thought of as different. Dogs are not people, after all.

Dogs are not people, that is obvious, but humans, especially those called politicians, are perhaps a bit too arrogant and naive. If the argument is sound that some breeds of dog are genetically predisposed to aggression, then the argument is equally sound that some ethnicities within the human species are genetically predisposed to aggression. Dogs may be dogs, but science is science, and science is both objective and universal.

Sir Francis Galton, born in 1822, was the first scientist to study heredity and human behavior systematically. Since then, the science of behavioral genetics has advanced. There are several indications that behavior is genetic.

Behaviors can be altered in response to changes in biological structures or processes. For example, a brain injury can transform a shy, quiet person into a loud, aggressive jerk, and doctors routinely treat behaviors caused by mental illness with drugs that affect brain chemistry. Geneticists have even created or abolished specific mouse behaviors by inserting or disabling certain genes.

In humans, some behaviors run in the family. For example, mental illness tends to cluster in families.

Behaviorial similarities run across similar species. Chimpanzees are humanity's closest relative, sharing 98 percent of oru DNA. The two species also share behaviors that are very much alike. For example, both are highly social creatures. Both nurture, cooperate, demonstrate altruism, and even share similar facial expressions.
Recently, the science of behavioral genetics has shown that many human personality traits that most people see as a product of will are, as it turns out, products of genes. Novelty-seeking, for example, shows a strong genetic influence. In fact, studies demonstrate that certain behaviors such as alcoholism are related to growth hormone release. Another study looked at 124 unrelated subjects and showed that "higher than average novelty seeking test scores were significantly associated with a particular exonic polymorphism, the 7-repeat allele at the locus for the dopamine receptor D4 gene." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=601696) What that means, basically, is that novelty-seeking is likely linked to a particular genetic variation in humans.

Genes affect a variety of human behaviors, whether or not individuals like to believe they do. Dog behavior is also influenced by genetics. In fact, humans share more of their ancestral DNA with dogs than with mice. Dogs and humans are so genetically alike that scientists study disease in dogs to learn about disease in human beings. ""When compared with the genomes of human and other important organisms, the dog genome provides a powerful tool for identifying genetic factors that contribute to human health and disease," according to Dr. Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Scientists also have evidence that genes influence aggression. Researchers at the University of Virginia, for example, published information indicating that sex chromosomes (those X and Y shapes of DNA in our cells) influence maternal and aggressive behavior in humans. Emilie Rissman, PhD, a professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at the University of Virginia remarked on her research, "It is our hope that these data could lead to the discovery of new genetic bases for aggression and parental behavior in other animals, including humans."

So, beware. If you believe that certain breeds of dogs should be exterminated because they are genetically prone to aggression, then it follows, logically, that certain human races or even genders are more prone to aggression than others. In other words, if you support breed profiling, then you must, according to science, also support racial profiling.

Welcome to the brave, new world.

Wow, you disagree with me but then your evidence backs mine up, that genes are a factor in aggression in dogs. To further deconstruct your arguement your comment about bite pressure is somewhat floored, I stated to show that a pitbull has a more powerfull bite than a boarder collie, your arguement against did not look at a boarder collie you mention rotties and g.s. but not boarder collies. You also missed the point in that the example was to show that somedogs have a greater potential to do damage than others, which combined with likely hood of aggresion, the likelehood of style of attack etc gives some breeds a higher potential to be more dangerous than others.

I'll state again that my intention has been to get people to look at the middle ground, the ground between doing nothing and exterminating a breed. But in doing so have had to show the arguement that some breeds are more aggresive/dangerous than others. And you have agreed, you said yourself breed restrictions are something you would not mind.

How you link breed profiling and racial profiling is madness. As you say dogs are not people after all, and you are absolutly right. A dog does not consider its morals, a dog will not walk away from temptation on the basis of that belongs to someone else, a dog will not stop to consider the consequence, a dog does not have the rights that a person has etc Thats an insane arguement. grow up!

www.cherokeetrail.net/library/canine-aggresion.htm has a section on redirected aggresion and it is very clear that a person or another animal may become the reciepient of agression by intervening or approaching an aggresive dog. Also I did not state that I have been to college and tried some tests, I said I have studied canines formally, much more than just a few tests.

I never argued that some breeds are more prone to aggression then other breeds. I firmly believe that dominant and protection breeds require an extremely higher level of responsibility and I have always strived to never allow my favor of such breeds to get in the way of common sense when it comes to their nature adn drive. I also feel that such breeds are not for everyone but you've yet to give an example of this middle ground you speak of. From your posts it sounds as if you truly favor breed bans all together. Whichever way you feel, that is your right, I have no issues with that. But as I mentioned before it is a huge diservice to your intellegiance to make false statements.

I work very hard with my dogs and go out of my way to ensure they are not harmful to any persons or other animals. I guess if we could reach some kind of middle ground I would ask for you to look into the fact that these dogs CAN be successful in living a happy healthy and peaceful life. Obviously we will never agree on some things but I can't stand by and be silent while you bash a breed that is part of my family and has been longer then I've been around. Telling me to "grow up"  is pretty much the end of the line for me because I can't reason with immaturity. Gooday

Concerning the thing about false statements, the statements are not false, a quick google of the term 'redirected aggresion' and you would see hundreds of sites explaining the cause, I have even given you a link to one. My integrity remains intact. I have never disputed that a banned dog can make a great pet, but it seems to me you joined in during the middle of something, so i'm coming to my conclusion, which you may or may not agree with, but there you go. Apologies if I offended you by suggesting you grow up, but at the end of the day when you start to suggest that aknowledging genetic aggresion is in some way promoting raceism, or in some way makes me racialy bias, thats just too far.

And so it seems to me that the topic has a theme of one thing, over compensation. The British government identified the need to do something and it probably overcompensated by having too severe restrictions. The arguement against overcompensated by denying the need to do something (in the u.k.) or denying the case that some breeds are more dangerous than others, but through a combination of factors such as ability to do damage, likely style of attack, proness of aggresion, statistical evidence etc it is the case. And from these two extreme viewpoints we get a situation where to support one strengthens the resolve of support for the other. In other words the more the government agencies hear that there is no more danger in one breed to another, the more it considers the general population to be somewhat naive to the dangers which in turn strengthens their attitude towards more severe restrictions. The answer as usual lies in the middle ground, the area in which no one had offered a suggestion.

Oh there are a ton of things going on to try and reach a middle ground but the government is to focused on breed bans instead of breed restrictions. Understandably so, its considerably more costly to regulate and enforce breeding restrictions.

PBRC and thousands of shelters does its best to advocate responsible breeding and ownership but a majority of the breeders and owners are not the kind to take to advice, regardless of the way its delivered. Members frequent bully confreneces and expos trying to educate prospective buyers and breeders but money talks. Especially when your telling these people to stop taking their pit bulls ot dog parks, to socialize early on, to stop breeding for color and large size......and health and temperments tests, LOL they laugh in your face.

Then those same people walking a 100lbs massive monster pit bull look at a correct 55lbs pit bull and ask "it must not be full pit" its very frusterating and mor eand mor eseems lile a losing battle.

I do have hope and I will not stop. I among many others try to set a good example by having well behaved and socialized dogs. Thousands have earned their CGC award and work in rescue and a service dogs but that number is heavily exceeded by the vast number of poorly bred pit bulls.

I mean look at the American Staffordshire.....they are from the same stock but were bred for show with a careful hand in temperment. They are wonderful dogs, are not being bred to be oversized or aggressive and are very popular with responsible owners.

It can be done, its not impossible and I admit that my love for the breed does get the best of me sometimes

good points. The two things I pick up on the most is cost and that there are always people who wont take advice. The later is something the U.K. government must be only too aware of, every cigarrette packet in the UK has smoking kills or something similar printed on it by law but still many people take it up each year, and so when that is considered I think it is the desision of why laws were brought in instead of an education drive, and the reasons for the strict laws were almost certainly cost related.

But that said there seems to be a picture floating around of the situation in the uk where hundreds of dogs were taken in front of crying children and then put down and I really dont think this was the case, it almost certainly happened a couple of times but the picture painted by the media assumes the dog is being put down purely because it happens to be of a particular breed and this isnt really the case. The laws were designed to allow existing dogs to live, all be it registered, microchipped etc. I'm not saying the laws were correct, but that they were not as bad as what you may imagine.

As for the middle ground, now thats a brave area, almost every suggestion has a load of possible complications. It is almost certain that the cost of restrictions, or at least a portion of, has to be placed on the owners. I think mandatory microchipping is important and should be in place for any breed of dog. It has two major benefits, If the dog becomes lost it provides the details of the owner(s) and if the dog is neglected, abused, involved in an incident or used for illegal purposes again the owner is immeadiatly identified. The flip side of the coin is that there may be a situation occur where home operations take place to remove the chip. I think breeding licensing is a good idea, by using this the breed could be selectivly bred to diminish some of the less desirable attributes associated with some dogs within the banned breeds. This however has many complications, it would involve mandatory spaying/neutering in order to enforce the restrictions, then who is that can decide which dogs or what a dog has to fulfil or what a breeder has to fulfil in order to breed. It would also require a national database of who goes on to own the pups etc which is basically dog ownership licensing. Again there are some good advantages to this, stipulations can be done to reinforce reasonable ownership including background checks of criminal records etc to make sure a potential owner has not any record involving animal neglect or such, house checks can be done pre issue to ensure the dog has the required environment to fulfill its needs etc possibly a stipulation that some breeds are not available as a first dog or some kind of age requirement on some breeds may be a good idea, but this may or probably will increase the amount of 'dognapping'. As always education does help and mandatory training for first time owners is a good idea, which could be recorded on the license once complete, and at the same time a recognisable and mandatory level of education and/or training for dog trainers would also be beneficial (again I dont know about the US but some of the trainers around here are hardly fit to train their own dogs, not all, but there are certainly a number about). And I think that these are all ideas which can be paid for by the potential owners, which wouldnt cost incredible amounts, but which with a little juggling and consideration could promote a reasonable compomise in the U.K.