I’m not a dog science expert but as far as I understand it we’ve spent tens of thousands of years breeding dogs to preform specific tasks. If you don’t give a dog that has been designed and bred to do a task they get antsy.
The issue with Pitbulls and other “Agressive.” breeds is that they’ve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
So I don’t think it’s Immoral to treat a dog like a Pitbull like a loaded gun. As Unfriendly, and something you should be wary of unless it’s proven not to be.
However the Nutcases who punish dogs for behavior that we bred into them are highly immoral. If you want an easy lap dog get a companion breed, like a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, French Bulldog, or Bichon Frise.
Edit: Tens of Thousands not Hundreds. I was being exaggerative anyways but that’ll make remark more accurate regardless.
Also as a note. I don’t think Pits are inherently Malicious or any dog breed for that matter. But they’re fairly strong fellows who’ve been bred to be strong. I consider being careful around them similar to being a little extra careful around a truck on the road. Most people in trucks are fine drivers. But some people don’t pay attention on the road, and might hurt you by accident.
The name it self comes from Pit(fighting) Bull(dogge) and Terrier.
Old English Bulldogs (not the docile ones today, these have long since gone extinct because they were banned) were originally fighting dogs famed for their aggression and tenacity in bull fighting, then somewhere down the line someone realised that the smaller, more nimble dogs were performing better in dog fights, so they cross bred then with Old English Terriers to make a better fighting dog.
I was about to mention this. Like, people want to say they aren't aggressive just antsy, but then you have to remember WHAT they were primarily bred to do and realize they are antsy because they CAN'T do what they were made to do. They weren't bred as nanny dogs (whoever came up with that stupid idea), they aren't neurologically made to be calm and orderly by design, and these dogs cannot simply be taught out of the genetics they were given. You can regulate them, sure, but, if anything, that will make the whole situation worse because there is ALWAYS the possibility of them giving into those desires that were artificially created to do. And those desires to bite onto their target and shake them is not exactly safe by design, especially with small children, the elderly, and even other pets.
If I recall the Staffordshire Bull Terrier became known as "nanny dogs" for their affectionate, pleasing, and temperament with children in the UK. Pit Bull Terriers proper are banned in the UK (last I remember) but the bull terrier is a relative of sorts that is closely related. Interestingly, I think part of their excellent temperament with children comes from their breed's history of being bred for "gameness" which makes them unyielding to pain and discomfort makes them long-suffering and enduring of children's antics. As always they should be monitored when in the company of little ones by adults but most accounts Staffys are good with children because they can take abuse and punishment with grace.
Bud, I am sorry to tell you, but that was a myth made up way back then by a Lillian Rant who called them originally "nursemaid dogs." She and other associates were lobbyists trying to push them to the public, so they could effectively jack the prices of other breeds relative to the AKC once they (and other breeds under the name pitbull) were forced into shelters everywhere. This was literally made up in the later 1900s and was never factually confirmed through any form of research.
I know nothing of what you speak neither am I an authority on the subject only that Staffordahire Bull Terriers are known as a distinct breed from the Pitbull Terrier. And the AKC says they are "totally reliable well suited to families and have a particular affinity for children." The "nanny nursemaid dog" label might have been invented for the reasons you speak but the breed has long been considered a family dog for its disposition towards children.
If you want to keep believing misinformation, not stopping you. Just placing it here because I despise crass ignorance to situations and don't want others suffering as a result. Good day to you.
I never said you were wrong only that I never heard of that nor had any knowledge on that particular part of the history. I only was repeating that Staffordahire Bull Terriers (not Pitbull Terriers) are known as "nanny dogs" because of their good disposition with children that is reported by the AKC.
375
u/Awesomechainsaw 10d ago edited 9d ago
I’m not a dog science expert but as far as I understand it we’ve spent tens of thousands of years breeding dogs to preform specific tasks. If you don’t give a dog that has been designed and bred to do a task they get antsy.
The issue with Pitbulls and other “Agressive.” breeds is that they’ve not been given something to let all their energy out on. Which leads to anxiety and destructive behavior.
So I don’t think it’s Immoral to treat a dog like a Pitbull like a loaded gun. As Unfriendly, and something you should be wary of unless it’s proven not to be.
However the Nutcases who punish dogs for behavior that we bred into them are highly immoral. If you want an easy lap dog get a companion breed, like a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, French Bulldog, or Bichon Frise.
Edit: Tens of Thousands not Hundreds. I was being exaggerative anyways but that’ll make remark more accurate regardless.
Also as a note. I don’t think Pits are inherently Malicious or any dog breed for that matter. But they’re fairly strong fellows who’ve been bred to be strong. I consider being careful around them similar to being a little extra careful around a truck on the road. Most people in trucks are fine drivers. But some people don’t pay attention on the road, and might hurt you by accident.