Jenni, knowing or expecting more/less the predisposition of an animal, be it a dog, horse, cat, or lab rat are what genetics are all about. If I wanted dog to help me hunt or if I needed a guardian for the farm, or I just reguired a ball of fur to lie in my lap should I'd go to the closest person those bitch just threw a litter? Or should I look at where they came from?
My own favorite breed has only about a hundred years of push behind them. Most breeds have many more decades and in some case centuries more behind them. Thats alot of push in either case.
No it's not dangerous thinking that an animal has a predisposition, it's realistic. And predisposition also is why, to your credit, the animal was under control.

Bet the horse was pissed.
Randy

I only meant dangerous in that thinking that one breed is more or less likely to jump way off (or however you said it) is kind of misleading. I'd prefer to say that it's the individual's genetics, and not a breed as a whole, because there are so many sub-breeds, if you will, w/in a breed. Take and A.S.S. (Am.Show Shep) vs a DDR GSD. Or maybe a Czech dog...or a German showline. Sure, they're all GSD's (supposedly), but depending upon individual genetics, some particular dogs are more or less likely to do_________. My bone to pick was the hint of breed generalization.

Randy, I think what we are all talking about here is that education is missing and that is key in any breed of dog. Even though, they are all dogs, they do have different genetics and that may make them act one way vs another. I also, never pick on a breed, but if the dog does something that should've been noted because of it's breed, it's not so much the dogs fault that it happened. It's the owner's fault for not knowing it could've or or might've happened. An animal aggressive PB is about as shocking as a human aggressive GSD or Mal.

Thank you Alex for helping out. I do believe education is mostly my issue in reguards to breeds. That and the irresponsiblity of way too many owners.
Jenni, I'm duely chastised. Sorry for not being clearer in my thinking and writing. And I admit perhaps jumping to conclusions, even if inadvertently, my ire wasn't pointed at you. Sorry.
Nice to be with Knowledgable dog people.
Randy

Randy, thanks for clarifying. So many newbies come to this site for guidance that I just don't like leaving things that could be easily misconstrued unexplored. Your one statement kinda came across like "well, duh. Everyone knows Pit Bulls do_______" so I wanted to see if that was really what you meant.

Welcome here.

 Quote: jenni williams

by selective breeding, you mean inbreeding. These morons breed father to daughter, sister to brother, etc, if they have the "fire." Neat. They must be really tough. It couldn't possibly be that they're genetic mutants and totally off their rockers (with good reason.)

I'm sorrry, but having gone back and reread this thread, I take issue with the accuracy of this statement.

All inbreeding/tight breeding does is isolate and refine desirable traits. It's not wrong, unethical, nor is it responsible for the media woes this breed is facing nowadays. Fact is, dogmen kept lines tight for generations without incident; LONG before the gangsta/thug pariah ever got ahold of this breed. And it is exactly the manner in which these dogs were historically bred that accounts for their mental/physical prowess.

Now, if we really want to point the finger at anyone or any activity, then let's focus on the bottom dwellers who abuse and profit from the exploitation of these dogs. Because, it is these people who are hiding behind the 'pitbull' curtain. Their 'modus operandi' is to knowlingly pair aggressive dog to aggressive dog in the hope of producing a more aggressive dog. And this has nothing to do with tight breeding, because they'll use an outcross just as fast as they'll breed a son or daughter back to its parent if they think it'll produce well. Their goal? To breed/own dogs they have to keep chained and feed with a shovel. Why? Because they're ignorant scum who think aggressive/mean dogs are tougher fighters/protectors.





Andy.

 Quote:

All inbreeding/tight breeding does is isolate and refine desirable traits. It's not wrong, unethical, nor is it responsible for the media woes this breed is facing nowadays.

I didn't see her saying anything about it being wrong, unethical, or responsible for the media woes. I saw her mention how an uncommingly close breeding might tend to yield some pups with a lot in common with their owners.

I see it as an implication that tight breeding is responsible for creating 'genetic mutants'.





Andy.

Exactly.

Steven,

That is exactly what tight breeding is NOT!!




Andy.