Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

[SaltyDawg]

Also, cropped ears are hardly comparable to brass knuckles. It is far closer to a tattoo than brass knuckles. How many fights did a dog ever win by smacking the other dog with its ears?

I don't know how many fights a dog won by snacking ears, but I know enough were lost because of ears that people started cropping them.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't know how many fights a dog won by snacking ears, but I know enough were lost because of ears that people started cropping them.

So logically it was done to protect the dog from other dogs, not to make the dog fight harder.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You have yet to prove that cropping the ears in and of itself makes the dog a more ferocious fighter. It makes it harder to damage the ears, but does nothing to affect the temperament of the dog. Your attempt to claim as fact what you have failed to prove or support is laughable.

I proved the ears were cropped to make the dog a better fighter. If you don't agree with my conclusion, you have yet to prove otherwise. Your attempt to clam as fact what you have failed to prove is laughable.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So logically it was done to protect the dog from other dogs, not to make the dog fight harder.

It was done to make the dog a better fighter. As my link said.

 

[Scat]

It was done to make the dog a better fighter. As my link said.

Actually, no. In reading up on the subject it had more to do with natural ears getting easily bitten and then getting infected. Before the days of antibiotics this was a big deal to protect the dogs ears. Oft times they would clip them off completely. It was common to do this with hunting dogs as well. Nowadays, cropping the ears is a personal preference and not beneficial in fighting.

Perusing the web I'm finding more and more information stating that cropping the ears lends no advantage in fighting and that in fact, most dogs that are truly fought do not have their ears cropped. It leaves too much of the inner ear exposed thereby creating a situation where damage can be greater than leaving the dogs ears normal length.

https://www.leospetcare.com/ear-cropping/

2. Cropped ears are supposedly more difficult to rip off during dog fights. Turns out this is NOT true, and dogs with Battle Crops get injured just as badly as those with natural ears.

https://www.riospitbull.com/ear_cropping.htm

It is not practical to crop the ears of a fighting dog becasue it leaves too much of the inside exposed.

https://www.pittieloverescue.org/breed-info-and-education/

Cropped ears are not an indicator of the dog’s background. Some dogs bred for the pit have cropped ears, some don’t. Show dogs often have cropped ears, both with the APBT and the AST, but not always. Some dog fighters prefer cropped ears, some don’t.

 

[NUMBERICA]

When a dog attacks someone we can only hold the owners accountable, even though they may have done everything they knew how to do to raise a responsible dog. When a person shoots someone it is obvious that they are responsible and can be held accountable.

If you took away all the guns people would still hurt one another because they want to. The gun did not make them want to hurt someone. Owning a pitbull is not like owning a gun, it's like owning a time bomb that might go off at any moment or might never go off. Who is hurt is completely unpredictable.

I understand the argument (though it's on the fringes), but come on. Life is a time bomb, as are every breed of dog.

The hard reality is that guns - however you want to spin it - are somewhere in the realm of 1,000 times as dangerous and cause fatalities in such a relative proportion. How a breed of dog can be outlawed while guns can't is boggling to any sensical or sensible appraisal of reality. If we're to become a true nanny society, let's have some sense of prioritization about it.

As far as my personal beliefs beyond that go and more specifically the situation of pit bulls, I think there should be adoption controls on breeds. I don't find the idea of screening aspiring adopters to be a bad one and actually support it. There should be some more controls put on breeding of pit bulls (though I don't know what exactly since maintaining pure breeds is innately unhealthy). If a horse-**** ban is implemented then people with pets should at the absolute least be able to keep the dogs they have.

I also do not believe pits to be innately aggressive to humans. Dogs that display such behavior have historically been killed and usually before they bred (at least at the inception of the breed, which this whole discussion seems to be centered around). I believe all measures to restrict the acquisition of pit bulls should be built on th premise on protecting an oft-abused breed and that that then goes to protect humans to a large degree.

I had a pit bull for a few years and he was the absolute sweetest dog I've ever known and it wasn't even close. I was probably closer to him than I was any person during that time. Loved cats, other dogs, people. I even saw him protect other dogs from aggressive dogs in as peaceful a way as it could've been done. Through that experience I ended up meeting a lot of other pits and they were all incredibly sweet (since my dog made a few friends and would go crazy if he couldn't play with other dogs). The only innate aggression I ever saw from him was how aggressively friendly he was. I say none of this with hyperbole.

Dogs are like children. Generally speaking, if you have serious behavioral issues on your hands, chances are it's an environmental issue. And I believe owners need to be as much parents as proprietors.

 

[freakazoid]

LOL Cropped ears are not a weapon.

Again, I'm going to have to go back to my earlier example. I've had the tip of Mr. Johnson cropped, and no doubt he is definately a weapon. Rather than argue, I'll just provide a link as proof.

https://girlinacoma.com/home

 

[Stifle Tower]

This.

The biggest problem with pit bulls are the owners. You can ban them, but then Johnny Meth-head or Michael dumbass Vick can always go out and buy one of those other breeds, and then "train" them to be aggressive by harrassing them until they hate all people. Like Nate, I've actually seen a yellow lab that this was done to. It sickens me.

I grew up with bird dogs, but I have owned one pit bull in my life, and the only reason that happened was because I knew someone who couldn't keep him anymore. My friends told me I was crazy to adopt someone's pit bull, and at the time I thought they were probably right, but I decided to give it a chance. Turned out to be one of the best dogs I've ever owned. He loved people, as well as other animals including cats. His name was Ballou, named after the bear in The Jungle Book. I know, I know, Stupid name, but he was an awesome dog.(that's actually a true story)

True. Pit Bulls by nature are very loyal and great family dogs. We have a pit bull/lab mix and she's a sweetie. Is very gentle with us, with our daughter and loves our cat. That said, if she had the pit bull jaw structure and showed any sign of agression, she'd immediately be gone. Almost any medium or large breed can be trained to be aggressive and dangerous. However, it is the jaw structire of the pit bull that makes the breed a whole lot worse than a German Shpeherd, Doberman, etc. They lock on and shred. Other dogs bite and release before biting again. I have no problems with cities banning pit bulls.

 

[LogGrad98]

I proved the ears were cropped to make the dog a better fighter. If you don't agree with my conclusion, you have yet to prove otherwise. Your attempt to clam as fact what you have failed to prove is laughable.

Well scat, along with many of the links I posted PROVED otherwise. Your link did nothing to prove that is made the dog a BETTER fighter, so how you can claim that, well no one but you knows. Please quote the exact passage that states that cropping ears makes the dog a BETTER fighter and more FEROCIOUS as you have claimed. Otherwise, feel free to read the many links scat and I have posted and quoted PROVING otherwise.

 

[LogGrad98]

You have yet to prove that cropping the ears in and of itself makes the dog a more ferocious fighter. It makes it harder to damage the ears, but does nothing to affect the temperament of the dog. Your attempt to claim as fact what you have failed to prove or support is laughable.

I proved the ears were cropped to make the dog a better fighter. If you don't agree with my conclusion, you have yet to prove otherwise. Your attempt to clam as fact what you have failed to prove is laughable.

What exactly did you post that proved it made the dog a better fighter? All you posted was a link showing that they used to crop the dogs ears for fights. Nothing at all even remotely proves a correlation between cropping and FEROCIOUSNESS or ABILITY to fight. Again, feel free to post the exact quote that proves that cropping = automatically a more FEROCIOUS and BETTER fighting dog. Oh and it would help to post the exact quote that the only reason for cropping is specifically to make the dog more ferocious, since scat and I have posted easily 6-10 links and quotes showing that is NOT correct.

Or you can just keep insisting you are right in the face of all evidence to the contrary. That seems to work so well.

 

[freakazoid]

Owning a pitbull is not like owning a gun, it's like owning a time bomb that might go off at any moment or might never go off.

I disagree. There is a certain amount of responsibilty that comes with either one, and they both have the potential for accidental maming and death. Common sense says that if you have kids in your house, and you own a gun, you need to keep it locked up. So why is it that every year without fail, kids get a hold of their parent's guns and accidentally shoot themselves or someone else? Stupid and/or careless gun owners. I'm against stupid/irresponsible people owning guns, but that doesn't mean we should just ban everyone from owning them.

I would agree that there is a greater responsibilty in owning a pit bull than a gun, but when it comes to stupid and/or careless people, I would rather they didn't own either one.

 

[Gameface]

I disagree. There is a certain amount of responsibilty that comes with either one, and they both have the potential for accidental maming and death. Common sense says that if you have kids in your house, and you own a gun, you need to keep it locked up. So why is it that every year without fail, kids get a hold of their parent's guns and accidentally shoot themselves or someone else? Stupid and/or careless gun owners. I'm against stupid/irresponsible people owning guns, but that doesn't mean we should just ban everyone from owning them.

I would agree that there is a greater responsibilty in owning a pit bull than a gun, but when it comes to stupid and/or careless people, I would rather they didn't own either one.

I hesitate to respond only because I don't want to turn this into a gun debate. That said...

I don't think people are hurt by accidental shootings, I think they're hurt by someone neglecting their responsibility in regard to proper gun handling and storage.

I also think pit bulls are safe pets if the owners don't neglect their responsibilities. I wasn't trying to make an anti-pit bull argument erlier, I was just playing devil's advocate to draw a comparison between they way in which guns hurt people compared to pit bulls. One requires human intent, the other doesn't.

 

[TroutBum]

I'm happy to see someone else pointing and laughing at Salty besides me. I was starting to feel bad.

 

[Bronco70]

I really didn't want to get sucked back into this fiasco, but I have to add, regarding the guns v. pitbulls issue; if suddenly there was no human negligence or misuse of guns, they would automatically be 100% safe. If every pitbull owner suddenly did a perfect job of keeping their dog, I do not believe you could assert that pitbull attacks would cease to occur.

 

[TroutBum]

I really didn't want to get sucked back into this fiasco, but I have to add, regarding the guns v. pitbulls issue; if suddenly there was no human negligence or misuse of guns, they would automatically be 100% safe. If every pitbull owner suddenly did a perfect job of keeping their dog, I do not believe you could assert that pitbull attacks would cease to occur.

Again with facts and logical thinking? Please, take that nonsense elsewhere -- Numberica and Salty are thinking here!

 

[GVC]

I really didn't want to get sucked back into this fiasco, but I have to add, regarding the guns v. pitbulls issue; if suddenly there was no human negligence or misuse of guns, they would automatically be 100% safe. If every pitbull owner suddenly did a perfect job of keeping their dog, I do not believe you could assert that pitbull attacks would cease to occur.

But that's never going to happen. I don't have a dog in this fight, but this argument seems pretty stupid to me. If pit bulls had super human intelligence and gummy bears for teeth, pooped rainbows, and greeted everyone with a hug, they'd be 100% safe.

 

[Scat]

But that's never going to happen. I don't have a dog in this fight, but this argument seems pretty stupid to me. If pit bulls had super human intelligence and gummy bears for teeth, pooped rainbows, and greeted everyone with a hug, they'd be 100% safe.

No they wouldn't. They'd find another way to exact their aggression on other living creatures.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Headgear, goggles, and body armor can certainly be considered weapons. If you are using them to win a fight, then yes, it's a weapon.

Stop. Just ****ing stop. Jesus.

 

[bigb]

I've come to the conclusion that arguing with Salty is like shining a light in the eyes of a blind man. Everyone sees the light except him.

 

[Safetydan]

Headgear, goggles, and body armor can certainly be considered weapons. If you are using them to win a fight, then yes, it's a weapon.

This is, easily, the most insane thing i've read on the internet this past year, maybe forever.