Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: question about camping with a pittbull
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in RV Pet Stop

Open Roads Forum  >  RV Pet Stop  >  General Topics

 > question about camping with a pittbull

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 9  
Prev  |  Next
toedtoes

California

Senior Member

Joined: 05/17/2014

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 02/22/19 12:59pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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.


1975 American Clipper RV with Dodge 360 (photo in profile)
1998 American Clipper Fold n Roll Folding Trailer
Both born in Morgan Hill, CA to Irv Perch (Daddy of the Aristocrat trailers)

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 02/22/19 01:07pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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.

Pawz4me

North Carolina

Senior Member

Joined: 06/05/2007

View Profile



Posted: 02/22/19 01:08pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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.


Me, DH and Yogi (Shih Tzu)
2017 Winnebago Travato 59K

toedtoes

California

Senior Member

Joined: 05/17/2014

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 02/22/19 01:09pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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.

toedtoes

California

Senior Member

Joined: 05/17/2014

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 02/22/19 01:10pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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

California

Senior Member

Joined: 05/17/2014

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 02/22/19 01:18pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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.

BB_TX

McKinney, Texas

Senior Member

Joined: 04/04/2005

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 02/22/19 01:57pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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.

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 02/22/19 02:09pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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.

* This post was edited 02/22/19 02:17pm by BCSnob *

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 02/22/19 02:31pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

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

Pawz4me

North Carolina

Senior Member

Joined: 06/05/2007

View Profile



Posted: 02/22/19 04:45pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BCSnob wrote:

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


But it's very interesting off topic stuff. I remember a bit about your field of expertise, so knowing your thoughts on testing for genes that affect behavior is interesting. I admit I don't always understand nearly as much as I wish I could, though.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 9  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  RV Pet Stop  >  General Topics

 > question about camping with a pittbull
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in RV Pet Stop


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.