Replies to post #400892 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[janice shell]

Yes. I once read somewhere that they're the second most social breed, after golden retrievers.

[wEaReLeGiOn]

I'd beg to differ. While it's true that a certain "macho" subset regularly acquires these Pit Bull Terriers, most are not. The problem is that these dogs are bred without breeders, or at least the "Main St" breeders, and proliferate.

Back in the 80's Springer Spaniels, unbeknownst by way of breeders, were bred with a fear attack response. The breeders quickly went into action to breed this behaviour out of this adored breed, successfully.

Pit Bulls have this tendency, and until the "black market" for attack Pit Bulls is eradicated, that breed will continue to deserve their reputation.

The same has gone on with Mastiffs. I managed to train a frothing mouthed snarling one into a kitty-cat within 3 minutes of appending a bark collar. Pit bulls react poorly to such measures. The Mastiff breed has managed much better due to reputable breeders. But, as fuagf would be first to point out, the menace is all there when the bite is worse than the bark.

Buy one from a very reputable breeder, or risk life & a limb perhaps.

[Zorax]

That's cause they only want them for lunch for themselves.

But I'm not going to get into that argument.
The same could be said for lions and tigers.

[sortagreen]

"It's all about the owners and their macho-ness and not about the breed or individual dog's nature."

True enough, but they're also capable of extreme violence, and they're strong enough to pull a 2 ton+ sled. That's a lethal combination. Other breeds may account for more bites than the pit, but few are capable of the damage a pit can inflict.

And... While I'm not going to categorize pit owners as largely gang bangers or trailer trash, you do have to admit that breed is really popular with unsavory characters.