I noticed that the top referring search term for this blog is “pit bull.”
I know just a little bit about their history, mainly because I’ve subjected myself to reading rather dubious and poorly written histories of the fighting strains of that dog.
Why?
Because they are actually very similar to retriever bloodlines and histories.
The great dogs are mentioned, as are their bloodlines.
Many of these people actually knew dogs.
Unfortunately, they wasted all of their knowledge on breeding dogs that would tear each other apart.
I have no respect for that.
It’s mindboggling to consider that dogfighting was once considered a legitimate “sport.”
But it’s incredibly important to understand that it WAS once (and not so long ago really).
As for the men who bred dogs to fight other dogs…. in what way were they different from the men who bred dogs to chase/kill rabbits, chase/kill coyotes and wolves, chase/kill you name it? We think of dogfighters as the moral cretins/scum of the earth we see portrayed in the media (as indeed they are). Once upon a time, the “dogmen” were respectable gentlemen.
So I challenge you to think about and explain why this “sport” so horrifies and disgusts you (as it does me), when other forms of dogs-killing-other-animal activities do not.
How many of the blogs you link to celebrate dogs that hunt down and kill other animals (or dig them up for the human to kill)?
Dog fighting is not the same as dogs hunting. The prey species can actually get away. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and man’s place in it is as predator. And its been that way since before we were modern humans.
I refuse to deny the dog its nature, as much as I refuse to deny that of my own species. Dogs usually don’t get to kill the game they tree. In a retriever, killing the game they retrieve is a major fault.
I’ve noticed that most people don’t complain about cats killing things, but as soon as a dog kills a prey species, all hell cuts loose. Never mind that cats kill far more species than dogs do.
As for dog fighting:
Dog fighting is very different. It is a slow, agonizing death, and the animals cannot get away. They must fight.
Here’s the best analysis of hunting I’ve read:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/text/sadism.txt
I think that because I grew up in a deer hunting culture and a hound dog culture that I have a very different appreciation for how nature actually works.
I don’t see the difference whether the hunter or the hunting dog kills the prey. I know sometimes saluki-dogs kills the rabbits, sometimes their master beduin does it. It depends how the hunter and co-operate. And of course – the laws.
I think the bigger problem is in the methods we produce our every day food. That is, in no way, an ecologically or ethically good way, as we all should already know.
I struggle hard to get my hunting and gun lisences done and will go to game. From that day on, I shall not buy any meat for myself or for the dogs, for I will hunt the meat we need.
Come to America, you can get a gun without a license. It’s in our constitution.
But you probably can’t hunt enough game to feed you or the dogs, because we have very strict limits on how many you can take.
That is, unless you live where there are moose (elk) and the big deer we call elk (which is a relative of the red deer).
according to the Muslim religion, it is forbidden to eat animals killed by a predator. The dogs are taught to bring the prey back alive for the hunter to kill. IIRC animals that die naturally are also forbidden. a friend of mine traveled in africa with the Taureg, who keep cattle and goats, and all the tribesmen carried large knives so that if an animal started to go down, they could slaughter it and it would not go to waste.
Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP9tL5jMfjQ
New dog-cultures are spreading, while old ones are dying. Still, there are dog-fighting clubs in US and in Europe, as sub-cultures.
I think the same, hunting game is very natural. Actually it’s written very strongly in the genes – both dogs & men. Fighting is not so important at all, compared with the ability to get food and eat.
There’s a basic natural mechanism, that prevents dogs from killing each other. Instead killing, they have developed, what I call, the dog-theatre. It includes all kind of gestures and bodylanguage etc. All the other animals do this same kind of drama, in their own way, and for the same reason – primaly their aim is NOT to harm anyone. Quite rarely they really have to damage badly, or kill the challenger.
What comes to the pb-dog-fashion, I’ve been wondering, why people choose this breed. That’s because very soon they start to take a tons of behavior classes to teach their dog not not fight.
It’s like I was having an elk-hound and then trying to stop her barking. Or getting a retriever – and then prevent him from carrying anything in his mouth.
Maybe someday some one tells me the point in that.
Dog fighting is illegal in the US. Most pit bulls are not fighting dogs, and most of them are quite docile. Most English bull terriers (the ones that look a bit like pigs) are even more toned down.
You are right about trying to stop elkhounds from barking. I grew up around Norwegian elkhound, one of which was half gray and half black. He barked all the time.
I had a friend, a hunter, who always had Norwegian elkhounds. He always told me it is not an easy task to make a good hunting dog and that kind of staff. But it was really interesting, for I learnt that there are different genes for driving and barking. If they happened to land on the same puppy, then. That friend have had a bitch, who didn’t bark at all but was very brave and drove almost furiously. The dog’s aunt only barked. But he also had a perfect dog, who barked only when there was game around.
If your elkie barked all the time, I think it’s because you have a damn good game there : )
My grandpa kept many of them for hunting. He also had the black breed, which are quite rare in North America.
This is a good analysis here: http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2007/07/black-and-white-and-redneck-all-over.html
Generally dog fighting exists among working class people. The fighting people I was reading about were all Texas and Oklahoma white rednecks.
(I have to admit that I don’t much like Thomas Sowell. Full disclosure!)
There are some points I do disagree with, of course, but I’m sure you can figure out which ones those are.
Why would anyone consider owning a pitbull? Probably because, like any other breed, they can make excellent pets.
Your analogies are poor. Let me try to fix one of them: It’s not like trying to never let a retriever retrieve, it’s like never letting them retrieve actual game. Playing with, oh, I don’t know, tennis balls instead.
All terrier breeds (and hounds, and shepherds, and retrievers) are working with some kind of modified hunting instinct. Pitbulls are just yet another breed full of energy and gameness.
Oops, I meant to reply to Bridget K.
If you took my arguments as “poor”, here I try to make it better.
Pbulls were made for dog fighting. Hounds and retrievers were made for getting a game. That’s why many pbulls and staffs are too intrested in challenging other dogs, while hounds and retrievers don’t give a damn, for they are mostly interested in using their noses for a bird, rabbit, hare or deer. Or something like that.
Yes, I see many pbull or staff-dog packed with energy everyday. Actually, I never see them reloading that energy. They are never let run free or play with other dogs. That makes owning a such dog a bit comlpicated in the city area. I think that is why the owners want to enter those behavior classes. I would do the same, if I happened to own one.
I know they have the terrier-based behavior, but also, a specially developed one.
Except pit bulls were not strictly used for dog fighting. Yeah, that’s what they’re most famous for, but I suspect that, even in the grand old days of dog fighting, there were more pit bulls living out generalized boring dog lives as all purpose farm and vermin dogs, as hog dogs, as just… dogs… than as glorified gladiators.
Why chose pit bulls? Because they’re great dogs. They’re smart, they’re funny, they’re athletic, they’re determined. They make fantastic companions, they make fine sport dogs. Yeah, the dog-dog aggression is a pain in the rear, but they’re hardly the only breed with that issue. While there are some pit bulls out there who are blind crazy dog-aggressive, the majority are not. Most can learn to tolerate the presence of other dogs, and while they may never be safe as free-running off-leash park dogs, they’re, again, not the only ones.
It’s interesting. One of my trainers is a Schnauzer person. She lives and breathes Schnauzers. Her experiences with her dogs are very similar to my experience training my pitties. Some good, some challenging, some frustrating. They’re all dogs.
The origin of the bull-dog type is with the alaunt de boucherie, which was used to control, guard, and catch free-roaming livestock.
The hunting dogs are really after the real hunting, the real game – they would really like sniff, follow, flush and retreive the real animals. That’s what we let them do, everyday and also in the city area.
A retriever would – in anyway – choose a real smell to follow, flush and retreive – the tennis ball is not just enough. I think many of the poodle would do the same, but it used to be a hunter, too.
EmilyS already said anything else I wanted to add except…
“The tennis ball is just not enough”? Really? By that logic, very few people would be able to keep any breed of dog strictly as a family pet. (Except the few breeds like shih tzu).
I guess I’d better take my border collie back to the shelter. Obviously the 60 min walk, 45 min of fetch every day, plus hiking on the weekends, plus agility class once a week is not enough mental and physical stimulation, even though she’s exhausted every night. Yes, she truly is missing out, having never seen a sheep in her life.
I don’t have any experience on shepards. I have hunting dogs. I wish to go hunting next season. I didn’t want a collie, because competition and aquility is not my thing, nor is jogging. I wouldn’t share the same interests with that kind of dog, so it would cause promlems, if I had one.
I’ve always been intrested in nature phenomenoms, and birds, for instance. I also walk in the forests, climb in the hills and bergs, swim. I’m a very good caster. That’s what I do with my dogs, too.
There are hundreds of rabbits, seagulls and pigeons around, so guess what happens when my hungarian wizla sees a bird. He stands on it. My retreiver is after the rabbit smells, but loves swimming. Sometimes he loves to swim after ducks (which would vanish very quickly to the horizon).
We train once a week with real, dead birds and rabits. With balls or toys, no way.
So, dogbreeds are different and this is one important reason we choose our breed. Or, it SHOULD be. It is a match, when you find your type of a breed.
But, having a special kind of dog also tends to change their owners attitudes, behavior and personality. More or less.
I tho’ knew an aussie koon dog being really crazy to herd his own people. They tried to cook in the kitchen, and you know, the dog was herding them to move to the living room and so on. Now-a-days I know a little border collie, who is herding amazingly hard all the (nice behaving) dogs she meets. She really thinks they are her sheep. It is so funny to see. Maybe she thinks, that when they are nice behaving, they MUST BE sheep.
I also learned it demands a quite much time & work from the owner to make the kind of dog learn away the unwanted behavior.
I don’t disagree that there are other ways to satisfy a working dog’s instinct.
That said, my Lab loves retrieving BIRDS. It’s very obvious. Oh, he’ll retrieve bumpers–particularly if he’s had a couple of idle days–and he’ll take pleasure in it. But it’s different.
My flattie, while she’s far more retrieve-motivated than the Lab, clearly prefers looking for and retrieving birds more than any other thing. Oh–she’ll obsess over a toy or tennis ball, and it LOOKS like she loves it, and she’d retrieve until she got sick if I kept throwing things–but it’s sort of maniacal, and she seems to get no satisfaction from it… just more ramped-up desire. Retrieving a few birds, though, seems to give her some level of satisfaction.
So–I agree with you both. It’s possible to have a satisfied hunting dog without hunting–but it’s different.
Flattie’n'Labbie has made nice observations.
I see these tennis ball dogs (mostly terrier-types), and they seem to never get enough. It is quite hard for the new owners to find out too late, that their puppy is originally a working dog. So many of them are in the situation they just have to throw that ball forever.
Getting a dog is easy, while keeping it naturally healthy and relaxed is not that easy.
Absolutely.
I usually let people see this if they are interested in working-type goldens: http://www.bredekaer.dk/golden_retrievergb.htm
Check out these goldens: http://www.bredekaer.dk/hunde.htm
This is the type I prefer.
I have dogs that will gladly chase anything that moves: plastic bags, bugs, rabbits. Others will only chase live things, they are not motivated to chase plastic at all. One of my afghans bitches is so focused, that is how she spends her day, at the fence, looking for things to chase.
I also know of dogs that were very keen hunters that would also chase the lure, they knew it was a game played by different rules, even to the point of following the lure around the course instead of moving to cut it off as they would if it was a real rabbit.
I must comment on my latest, before someone gets it wrong.
It is possible to train different tasks on a hunting dog in the city area – of course not to hunt in real.
In dogfighting the way it used to be, the dog DID have a chance to get away. If it stopped/turned away, a break was called and the handlers brought the dogs into their respective corners. A dog’s gameness was in part assessed by its willingness to re-engage. If a dog quit, the fight was over. Yes, sometimes.. but not always… the losing dog was killed. I’m not arguing that dogfighting isn’t cruel and disgusting, but if you’re going to write about this subject you need to be accurate about what it was, at least. HSUS has promoted and CREATED the even more morally corrupt kind of scum street dogfighter you read about now, and of which Vick is a prime example… just a sadist, pure and simple.
As for the “prey has a chance to escape”: are you saying that coursing sight hounds DONT kill the rabbit if they can? That coursing dogs of the sort you lauded in your Borzoi post DONT kill the coyote/wolf? Are you saying that those who engage in “terrier work” DONT kill the (often completely innocent) “vermin” their dogs dig up? Does it matter whether the hunter or the dog kills the prey?
Again, I’m not defending dogfighting: I’m trying to understand what moral distinction you are making between a dog fighting another dog (killing was never the object for the dogmen) and a dog killing a cat/bunny/squirrel/coyote.
Bridget: you are just wrong about the training required for an APBT/AST/SBT. They don’t have to be “trained not to fight”. And for that matter they are not “trained TO fight”… they are only selected for that drive (which is RARE, by the way) and then put in the position where they are allowed to fight. For most of us normal APBT/AST/SBT owners, our dogs only need to be trained to behave around other dogs and kept away from the dogs owned by the average “he just wants to play” moron. For example, my APBT NEVER broke her stay during the out-of-sight obedience exercise. She competed in agility for 7 years without anything more than exchanging snark with some obnoxious in-her-face border collie. There are many APBT/AST/SBTs who do the same. Some of course, can and should not.
Note that I insist on using the correct abbreviations for the 3 breeds most commonly encompassed by “pit bull” (some SBT folks will argue that their breed is NOT a “pit bull”). The (English) bull terrier and the Boston (bull) terrier are usually NOT called “pit bulls” despite their very close relationship to the APBT. A “pit bull” is anything someone thinks it is.. just ask the Terrierman. Or ask the ACO in Denver, Toledo, Ontario and other places where dogs are rounded up and killed for appearance rather than behavior.
The American Pit Bull Terrier is one of the oldest American purebreds, as legitimate as any other (if any purebred is legitimate). It deserves to be understood and respected for what it is.
“As for the “prey has a chance to escape”: are you saying that coursing sight hounds DONT kill the rabbit if they can? That coursing dogs of the sort you lauded in your Borzoi post DONT kill the coyote/wolf? Are you saying that those who engage in “terrier work” DONT kill the (often completely innocent) “vermin” their dogs dig up? Does it matter whether the hunter or the dog kills the prey?”
Yes, of course they kill the animal if they can catch it. In hunting, that is the object, to catch food or kill a predator or crop pest. In field coursing, the kill is not the object, the chase is. In the UK, when hunting hare was legal, the kill rate was very poor for organized coursing. Most of the hares got away. Even in hunting, the animal has a chance to get away. It’s not like they are inside a fence. Neither the hunter or the dog decides when the chase ends. The prey decides, either by getting away, or being caught. In a dog fight, the humans decide when it’s over, yes? Whether to stop it when one dog quits or not?
I know from your comments on other blogs that you are anti-hunting. What exactly do you object to? The killing? Suffering in the prey animal?
Well, I’ve learnt that it’s not rare to meet bull & terrier – type of dogs that are quite much challenging other dogs (we know, mostly males challenge males). What a hunting dog should do if a staffordshire terrier for example, steps ahead and closes up his way. Well, he just turns away everytime, bu the bull and terrier – type can continue his challenging far too long to anyone to stand. That is, I mean, a hunting dog owner will break his nerves in that. Or, one of the dogs.
When my dogs were puppies, a few staffies / pbs were nice playing companion. But then, challenging and stupid fighting start to happen, so we had to part.
Sorry about that I can’t use the correct breed terms. I call them all just bull & terrier type, if I’m not sure.
I’ll see your small number of anecdotal stories about pit bulls and raise you a bunch of other people’s anecdotal stories: https://www.360photocontest.com/contest.asp?page=viewIndex&secure=on&contestId=25
To answer your first question, again, THIS is why people choose these types of breeds.
It’s not just dog fighters who like these breeds. They do not have some kind of special “dog aggressive” gene that other dog breeds lack. And you certainly don’t need special behavior classes to have one as a pet.
How about that golden retriever that killed a kid?
Granted, it killed the kid by grabbing hold of the child’s scarf (muffler) and pulling to so tight that she choked to death!
There was also a golden who bit a tiny little wound in his master’s thumb and he died – in blood toxication.
And what about that french mixed-blood-labbie, who mauled his lady’s face very badly, when she had taken a tons of sleeping pills and was nearly not to wake up anymore.
My first experience with rabies testing as a totally green vet tech was to assist in cutting the head off a Golden who had severely bitten the child in the household. It was a new dog to the home and it was more than certainly user error, but isn’t that usually the case?
Sigh. I will never forget that. It was horrific all the way around :(
Something is happening to the golden retriever. It’s really sad.
That’s right. Any breed is good as a human pet. That wasn’t my point at all, tho’.
I’m only concerned about the owners. Do they really know they dogs properly? What kind of relationship do they have? And, mostly, if something nasty happens, are they mentally strong enough to carry their responsibility and act even politely??
My dog once ran off the leash towards kids sliding down the berg in they inflatable sledge. The dog took a grab, too soon there was a hole or too. The parents were angry n shocked; the kids were sorry about their broken sledge.
So I just paid them the sledge. I just took my time to discuss with them about the incident. Afterwards I send a postcard with dogs and kids playing, because I don’t want to make any harm against our dog culture.
I’m quite disappointed, but EVERY ONE of the nasty cases happened to my dogs and my nearest people’s dogs and the people, have concluded with arguing, insults, total ignoring, or just escaping from the very place.
Too many stupid owners exist, everywhere.
Jess, you know from comments on other boards that I am anti-hunting? Really? care to quote an anti-hunting statement? Though MOST ethical hunters/conservationists make distinctions between kinds of hunting, opposing some and supporting others. And that’s true for me. I have no problem with hunting for food, and I’ve eaten my share of game.
I am trying to understand what moral distinction do YOU and others make between a dog fighting another dog in an organized contest (where the dog CAN “get away”), and a courser chasing down and killing a coyote. Or a human hunter killing an elk… or a human hunter killing a bear or a lion treed by dogs… or a human hunter killing a bighorn sheep. Or a human killing a groundhog his dog has dug on. Or how about a canned hunt for a trophy (where the prey IS inside the fence).
I can’t imagine what you mean by your statement that a prey animal has “decided” to end the hunt when the hunter kills it. I’m pretty sure most animals would decide NOT to get killed in this or any other fashion
I actually don’t care what prey species feel, so long as they don’t feel it for very long.
Life is hell for these animals.
Dying at the jaws of a dog is no different than dying at the jaws of a coyote.
And dying in the cancer due to the mobile-phone use or being killed in a car accident differ a much from e.o.
Life presents the same hell for humans.
ah, I misinterpreted. It’s not okay to hunt to preserve working ability or as pest control, only for food. You and I will differ there. What about predator control?
I told you what my distinction is: the prey animal has a chance to get away. The hunt is not called by the hunter, or the dog, but by the prey animal. It has the choice, stay or flee, go to ground, go up a tree, turn and fight. Fighting dogs do not get to decide when the fight is over, the humans do. That is why I don’t like canned hunts, and am kind of iffy on bird shoots where the birds are released. I don’t see your distinction of ‘where the dog can get away.’ Is this theoretical dog fight held out in the open where the loser, as soon as he knows he is beaten, can flee and have a hope of getting away? No one will stop him? are the dogs allowed to approach each other in such a way that they can choose whether to engage or flee? Two dogs out in the open, allowed to decide whether they will fight or not, allowed to flee freely if they choose, I would probably not have a problem with that, though I wouldn’t find it entertaining, and I can’t see the purpose in it except as an ego stroker for the owners of the dogs. Maybe in an area with many dangerous, feral dogs, a fighting dog would have something useful to contribute. I have seen pictures of Taigan set on chained wolves to test their mettle, and within the context of the Kyrgyz culture, I understand it, and the value of such a test for a people who keep livestock in a country where wolves are still major predators on livestock. Within the context of my own culture, a dog is a companion, a worker, so I don’t see the value in fighting dogs. Coyotes and jackrabbits are pests, rabbits, deer, etc. are food, there is something to be gained by killing them. I do not need to hunt rabbits with my dogs, and I don’t do it seriously, but I feel there is a value to preserving those instincts and abilities. (Maybe that is stroking my ego. Or, excuse me, indulging my blood lust.) I don’t really see the point of comparing dog fighting to hunting at all, as they have different purposes behind them and obviously different outcomes.
Maybe you can explain to me how dog fighting equates to hunting, especially hunting with dogs, because I’m not getting it.
Sorry, forgot this: “I can’t imagine what you mean by your statement that a prey animal has “decided” to end the hunt when the hunter kills it. I’m pretty sure most animals would decide NOT to get killed in this or any other fashion”
actually, prey animals often decide to get killed. Read Barry Lopez, Of Wolves and Men. Great story about a group of Bison, lying down, approached by a few wolves. One of the Bison panics and gets up to run, while the others simply ignore the wolves. The wolves go after the panicked one, which actually has an injured leg. I have seen footage (one long shot, not cut) of Lionesses hunting Wildebeest in africa, rushing up on a group of Wildebeest. One stops, and starts to lie down. It is on it’s way down when the Lionesses leap on it. It’s not injured, doesn’t trip or fall, it just stops and lies down while the other Wildebeest gets away. The predator prey relationship is vastly more complicated than simply one eats and one gets eaten. The predator does not control the situation by any means, and while the predator does decide to chase or not to chase (wolves, for instance, have a poor chase to kill ratio with Moose, if the Moose turns to face the wolves and gives them attitude, they usually back off), the prey can decide to run or not to run, and yes, decide to die.
I’m not a gun hunter, for me hunting is done with dogs chasing rabbits. The rabbits have a great deal of control over the situation. They can move or run, and catch the hounds eye, or they can stay still and not be seen. Why do you think coursing event use beaters? Even with guns or bows, the prey still has the advantage, being in it’s own territory and all.
and really, anyone who calls coursing a blood sport is an anti in my book. There is no purer form of hunting than falconry and coursing, IMO. It’s just involving the human in a natural hunt. My dogs would do it with or without me.
That is true. I’ve seen films on beduin hunting, and sometimes the hares just surrender, “they put their head in the bushes”.
I’ve seen it myself in the nature too.
But the older, wiser prey animals, the survivers, they are something else. And note, they also carry the best genes for the becoming generations.
There’s a couple of hares in town no one will ever catch.
Unless a car.
And THAT’S really a sin, I think, don’t you??
That was very good & and very interestingly put, thank u Jess.
Can you value in the sin-level about these true cases.
Points are: 1 – 3 may go to heven; 4-7 will be consired; 8-10 gets into heaven if there’s a one.
A. A loose Dobermann catches and kills a deer in town
B. A cat kills tens of rabbits in the garden area
C. A fisherman catches fishes
D. A driver kills a badger, but stops and takes it with.
All are hunting except one.
I don’t want to even analysize why, but I think driving over a animals, usually without noticing is among the very worst kind of killing. Why?
It is only a one example of the human misbehaviours towards the other animals.
Traditional hunting is the among the most dociles ways to kill.
But, as we know, people don’t necessarily need meat at all.
Take a look at your teeth: there are mill stones in there.
the canines are so poor that if you reap the meat with them, afterwards you have to use toothpicks to get the meet away from the holes between the teeth.
I’m from West Virginia, and D counts as hunting.
And there are dynamite fishers.
BTW, have you hear this:
Two Michigan duck hunters threw dynamite onto a frozen lake to open up a hole for waterfowl. Then they watched in shock as their Labrador Retriever returned with the burning stick of TNT and blew up their truck.
Your friends?
Heck no!
I wouldn’t be using a Labrador!
Oh yes, you’re a golden man!
Bridget- jsut want to reply to your biologically iffy statement about human teeth because it upsets me when ideology gets in the way of science. Humans show unspecialised dentition, ie about halfway between a carnivorous and hebivorous mammal. Though we lack large canines, we also lack a diasterna and have a very limited grinding plate (your millstones). This is consistent with the teeth of other omnivores (eg: pigs).
Also, the fact remains that without the development of modern food substitutes it would be impossible for a human to survive on a vegan diet.