question about camping with a pittbull

[gpeade]

The wife and I just bought a camper and want to get back into camping. This time around we have two dogs. Both are rescue "mutts" and one is part Pitt. First campground I called to make a reservation won't allow him because he is a "dangerous" breed. If any of you own bulls you know the BS and aggravation that goes along with this.
My question for you guys is this...what is your experiences with different campgrounds? Now I know I can say he isn't a Pitt but do campgrounds generally ask for vaccination records? These state he is a Pitt-mix so I can't hide it then.

How do those of you with larger dogs deal with this issue?

Thanks

[ljr]

Many years ago I tried to check in at a private campground with my Heinz 57, mutt. They kept asking her breed and just wouldn’t accept “I don’t know.”. Finally a teenager behind the counter decided she was a Pit Bull.

I haven’t been to a private campground since. Stick to state, county and municipal parks. The subject will never come up again.

[ppine]

Thanks to toedtoes for the post.

[BCSnob]

Our Wendy (120lbs of working Kangal) has been educational for me confirming to me animal and human aggression are not the same traits. She was bred in Turkey by shepherds who live in communal villages. Their dogs must be trusted loose in the village with their children. Human aggression is not tolerated at all; any sign of it is lethal for the dog. This means human aggression has been selectively bred out of these dogs (dead dogs are not bred). When we approach Wendy she automatically lays flat on the ground submissively; she does so without any signs of fear or anxiety. We did not train her to do this; it must be genetic since she was imported as a very young pup.

I have no qualms about her around any humans. However, I do not trust her with other dogs and I don't trust her with some of our dogs (some of our females). Her job is to protect our sheep and other canines can be viewed as threats. I have no doubts she would kill other animals; she has proven it. She is a living example of selectively breeding against human aggression while retaining animal aggression.

This was likely the case for fighting dogs where the handlers had to be able to separate dogs without being attacked themselves. However, these people tested each dog for animal and human aggression before breeding. Without testing for these genetically controlled traits dogs with these genes are being bred. --It is no different than breeding without testing for genetically controlled diseases; you don't know what is being passed on.-- Until these offspring are subjected to the triggering stimuli for these traits owners have no idea how their dogs (who carry these aggression traits) will respond. What these breeds were (when being tested for these traits) may no longer be representative of what the dogs are today. There will be individuals that are not human aggressive and some that are.

[2oldman]

While walking on a rural road I saw two unleashed dobies come running out of a yard, growling and looking very mean. They stopped about 100 feet short of me, barking and snarling as if daring me to take another step. My gut reaction was to yell at them to get the hell away from me. I was frightened. The lady owner came running out and started blaming me for this.. "don't you know what to do around aggressive dogs?"

"No, ma'am, I have never taken dog attack classes." I reported it to local animal control and they admitted they've had trouble at this address before.

[toedtoes]

Years ago I had a purebred boxer. She was all white and had been rescued at birth and then fed 1/2 can of cat food per day for an unknown number of years. This was in the 70s, when the term "pitbull" was becoming widespread.

Her ears were down, her tail cut too short, she was shorter and stockier than a boxer should be and her nose was too squashed.

I'd take her to the neighborhood park and kids would run up to her screaming in joy. The parents would be running behind yelling "don't touch it, it's a pitbull!". By the time the parents reached the kids, they were already hugging and kissing the dog. The parents would still be yelling about the dangerous pitbull. I would say " she's not a pitbull, she's a boxer" and the parents would immediately relax and say "OK then" .

Point: people don't react logically to dogs.

[Happytraveler]

I'm sometimes a little cautious around guard dogs.

In January Joshua Tree woman fatally attacked by four Pit dogs

We have a friend that their daughter was mauled by a Pit Bull a few years ago. She was very lucky. She does have a few scares on her face from it.

Another friend of ours had a doberman. The owner had a baby doll rapped up in a blanket and the dog broke through the slider screen and went after the doll. She wanted to test out the dog before she introduced the dog to her grandchild.

[2oldman]

gpeade wrote:
she changed his records from Pitt mix to "Brown mixed breed" Problem solved.

It's pit.

[toedtoes]

Ed_Gee wrote:
Based on data regarding dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2014, the dogs most likely to bite humans are:

Pit bulls.
Rottweilers.
Pit bull mixes.
German shepherds.
Bullmastiffs.
Wolf hybrids.
Huskies.
Akitas.

The problem with this list is that it doesn't take into consideration the "purpose" of the dog breed.

Rotties and shepherds and mastiffs are used as guard dogs. They are left outside in a yard with little interaction in order to "protect" the property from tresspass. When someone does tresspass, the dog does what it was trained to do - attack. So of course they will have a higher rate of reported attacks.

Wolf hybrids are wild animals and are not domesticated dogs.

Huskies are bred to be very independent and are smarter than pretty much any person.

Pitbulls are not a breed in and of themselves. They are a product of several different breeds that have been trained and bred to "fight" bulls or other dogs.

Akitas are very stubborn and big. They require a knowledgeable owner.

All of these breeds have been "adopted" by problem owners who believe their dog represents their manhood. As such, they have bred and raised a select population of these breeds to be more aggressive and problematic than the standard. This has warped the records.

In addition, small dogs are much more likely to bite (there was a study done years ago that reported that springer spaniels were the number one biter of all dogs - they believe it was due to the ears, kids love to pull on the ears and the dogs tend to have ear infections, etc., so the pulling hurts and they respond by biting) but they are rarely left outside to protect property so the opportunity to bite someone outside the family and friends is much more reduced so reporting is less likely to occur.

[BB_TX]

Happytraveler wrote:

Ed_Gee wrote:
Based on data regarding dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2014, the dogs most likely to bite humans are:

Pit bulls.
Rottweilers.
Pit bull mixes.
German shepherds.
Bullmastiffs.
Wolf hybrids.
Huskies.
Akitas.

Our home Insurance won't allow us to have any of those dogs on that list. A Chow is another dog they won't allow.

It is not so much that these breeds are more aggressive or likely to bite. The problem is that they are all such large and powerful dogs that the ones that do bite can cause serious injury very quickly. An attack by a high strung Pekingese that breaks the skin just doesn’t make the news.

[Landroamer1]

We had a pit/boxer that that wasn't aggressive towards other people or dogs. Unfortunately lost him at 4 years old due to a heart problem . One of the best pets we had.

[toedtoes]

Get your dog's dna tested through DNAMyDog.com.

They Do NOT test for "pitbull" so that term will never show up. Instead, the dog will show as a mix of a variety of breeds (American staffordshire, boxer, bulldog, bull terrier, etc).

Now you have some legitimate breeds to work with.

Next, pick the two "friendliest" or "most liked" breeds out of those choices. Go to your vet and let them know you got the dog tested and want to update the records -give them the two breeds only. Then have them reprint your rabies certification.

Insurance companies and such only require a max of two breeds to be identified for a mixed breed dog. They may argue on a "shepherd mix" classification, but will accept a "shepherd/beagle" without question even if the dog has 20 other breeds in it. Your rabies cert now legitimately denotes two breeds that your dog actually has.

If anything happens, you did not lie about your dog's breed. Your selection of the two breeds for identification purposes were based on appearance and/or personality (whichever works best for your purposes).

For example, I got my Bat-dog tested. She is shepherd, chow, shar pei, corgi, beagle, boxer, and german shorthair. For identification purposes, I use beagle mix (if not required to have two breeds listed) or beagle/shepherd. Shepherds aren't usually banned by insurance companies like rotties, pitbulls, etc.

[BCSnob]

Overbreeding and breeding inappropriate individual dogs have produced a large number of tempermentally unstable dogs of the Pitt type skewing the average/norm away from what the norm was for the Pitt type. The genetics for aggression must be there; however, for Pitts it was animal aggression not human aggression (these are not the same traits). Unstable temperaments (inappropriate genes for this breed/type) have yielded human aggression.

[gpeade]

Ed_Gee wrote:
Based on data regarding dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2014, the dogs most likely to bite humans are:

Pit bulls.
Rottweilers.
Pit bull mixes.
German shepherds.
Bullmastiffs.
Wolf hybrids.
Huskies.
Akitas.

If you have ever owned a Pitt or spend time around one you would know this is not the norm for this breed and its nature. Many act violent because they are treated mean. I could make a beagle mean if I wanted too. I can attest to the same for Rotts.

The meanest dogs I have ever been around are the ones that weigh 10lbs or less. LOL

[BCSnob]

Ed_Gee wrote:
Based on data regarding dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2014, the dogs most likely to bite humans are:

Pit bulls.
Rottweilers.
Pit bull mixes.
German shepherds.
Bullmastiffs.
Wolf hybrids.
Huskies.
Akitas.

I suspect the report you’re summarizing is the one based upon a review of attacks doing bodily harm (or the list on bite fatalities) and reported in the press. Bites that were not newsworthy or ones without a reported breed were not counted. The list is not of dogs most likely to bite humans.

[Happytraveler]

Ed_Gee wrote:
Based on data regarding dog attacks in the U.S. and Canada between 1982 and 2014, the dogs most likely to bite humans are:

Pit bulls.
Rottweilers.
Pit bull mixes.
German shepherds.
Bullmastiffs.
Wolf hybrids.
Huskies.
Akitas.

Our home Insurance won't allow us to have any of those dogs on that list. A Chow is another dog they won't allow.