DemoDick wrote:This is an interesting conversation. I think back to last week with the dobie approaching Cy. Cy was peeing and didn't see the dog coming...it wasn't until Cy looked over his shoulder and saw the dog (with it's nose up his butt) that he started to growl and his hackles went up...
(emphasis added)
I think the whole point of Michelle's post was that if you're a Pit Bull owner waiting for the typical signs of "unfriendly dog" that you described you're setting yourself up for a potential disaster. The serious Pit Bull who wants to fight displays much of the same body language as the friendly dog who just wants to play.
I've seen a lot of people, some who have been in this breed for years, get their hands on their first truly "hot" Pit and freak out, saying things like "he just snapped", "he didn't growl or bark or make a sound", or "I can't trust him now". In fact, the dog is behaving perfectly normally for this breed, and with a little understanding future problems can be avoided. Forewarned is forearmed.
Demo Dick
Malli wrote:Is his tail always set that high when it wags? It looked pretty upright to me... Other then that the rest of him gives nothing away...
DemoDick wrote:How much of this is learned behavior? By that I mean, he learned to hold his displays in check because of something...an aversive of some sort.
In his case? None. He's not holding any displays in check. He never "displays" fear or insecurity in that manner, and I don't think he ever has (the dog doesn't know how to back up from anything, as his breeder once said). He wants more than anything for Michelle to drop the leash, just like some dogs want to get the tennis ball.
Demo Dick
Now, here's my question...if we're saying that it is more instinctual to act this way in pits b/c it is bred into some lines, let's look at another instinct. Breeding. If you were to put an intact, in heat (or almost in heat) female in front of him, how would he act? I have heard of MANY DA dogs, pits included, who, when presented with a spayed female, will act like Riggs did. However, put an intact female in front of them, and they're a different dog. So, can the instinct of breeding overcome the instinct of fighting? From an evolutionary perspective, it should...
cheekymunkee wrote:Now, here's my question...if we're saying that it is more instinctual to act this way in pits b/c it is bred into some lines, let's look at another instinct. Breeding. If you were to put an intact, in heat (or almost in heat) female in front of him, how would he act? I have heard of MANY DA dogs, pits included, who, when presented with a spayed female, will act like Riggs did. However, put an intact female in front of them, and they're a different dog. So, can the instinct of breeding overcome the instinct of fighting? From an evolutionary perspective, it should...
They ( general they, as not all of them would) act the exact same way. That is why many game dog breeders use breeding stands. But it really depends on the dog itself.
cheekymunkee wrote:Good question & one that would be better answered by a game dog breeder. it seems they want to keep the 'sport' of dog fighting or matching alive and by breeding two very hot dogs they can have a better chance of having a hot litter. But, with this breed DA is a crap shoot. As you know you can breed 2 hot dogs together & get cold as ice puppies, just like with any breeding of any type of dog, the litter can be hit or miss.
pitbullmamaliz wrote:Regarding breeding urges vs. fighting urges, I know at least with Riggs, he's good with all females (except for Inara, apparently). So I would think breeding wouldn't be an issue with him. I think it does seem extreme if you have to use a breeding stand to breed two dogs.
TheRedQueen wrote:How do you go about getting dogs like this then? (I'm not talking about Riggs...just in general).
I have met dogs that don't give warning...and most have been human-made. So how would you get a breed as a whole to not give warning? Just thinking...I do get the idea that it's better for fighting...but how to get there?
TheRedQueen wrote:How much of this is learned behavior? By that I mean, he learned to hold his displays in check because of something...an aversive of some sort.
TheRedQueen wrote:I don't know much about Riggs specifically...so I'm not necessarily aiming it at him...but just putting out food for thought for everyone to ponder.
DemoDick wrote:He never "displays" fear or insecurity in that manner, and I don't think he ever has (the dog doesn't know how to back up from anything, as his breeder once said).
amazincc wrote:So are you saying that Riggs' behavior is "instinct", per say? Were Pit Bulls actually bred for NOT displaying any warning signs?
DemoDick wrote:Don't assume he wants to play just because he looks like he does.
katiek0417 wrote:In fact, even without a pit, if one of my dogs is THAT locked in on something, someone, or another dog, regardless of whether hackles are up or growling, I know that my dog wants it.
Malli wrote:Is his tail always set that high when it wags? It looked pretty upright to me... Other then that the rest of him gives nothing away...
katiek0417 wrote:Now, here's my question...if we're saying that it is more instinctual to act this way in pits b/c it is bred into some lines, let's look at another instinct. Breeding. If you were to put an intact, in heat (or almost in heat) female in front of him, how would he act? I have heard of MANY DA dogs, pits included, who, when presented with a spayed female, will act like Riggs did. However, put an intact female in front of them, and they're a different dog. So, can the instinct of breeding overcome the instinct of fighting? From an evolutionary perspective, it should...
katiek0417 wrote:Now, see, I let a few other people see the video, and they said that the stare gives him away...which is what I thought
cheekymunkee wrote:In Munkee's case, none as well. He was never corrected for displaying because to tell you the truth, he never HAS. The only indications that I had that he was becoming DA was his becoming more impatient with other dogs. Then one day, bam. He hated them all.
cheekymunkee wrote:They ( general they, as not all of them would) act the exact same way. That is why many game dog breeders use breeding stands. But it really depends on the dog itself.
katiek0417 wrote:So, then, the question becomes, why are these dogs being bred? I'm not trying to be smart...I think we can all agree that dogfighting is wrong. From an evolutionary perspective, only the strongest genes survive. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of breeding is to pass on those strongest genes. The only reason any of us or any of our dogs are here is because of breeding. If the instinct to fight is stronger than the instinct to breed, then isn't that an indication that maybe a dog shouldn't breed? I mean, we're talking about an instinct that has been around since the beginning of time....
pitbullmamaliz wrote:Regarding breeding urges vs. fighting urges, I know at least with Riggs, he's good with all females (except for Inara, apparently). So I would think breeding wouldn't be an issue with him. I think it does seem extreme if you have to use a breeding stand to breed two dogs.
katiek0417 wrote:Also, as we talk about fighting "instinct" I wonder if it's appropriate to call it instinct. There was a psychology conference held in 1960, from which stemmed a book called "Instincts" (I don't own this book, however, it's cited in several of my Learning and Behavior textbooks)...according to the book, to truly be considered an instinct, the following criteria must be met. The behavior must:
1) be Automatic
2) be irresistible
3) be triggered by some event in the environment
4) occur at some point in development
5) occur in every member of the species
6) be unmodifiable
and 7) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training
The book goes on to say that given this definition, there are no instinctual behaviors in humans, but other species show these instincts when it comes to migration, hibernation, and breeding. Furthermore, in animals, if the correct learning is somehow kept from being learned, then the instinctual behaviors disappear. This suggests that rather than being instinctual, they are, instead, very strong, however limited, biological predispositions...
TheRedQueen wrote:I still would not have thought Riggs was genuinely playing...he's too intense for my taste. I'd be curious to see his body language when he's not on leash too. His body posture was very upright for a dog that wanted to play...but the leash may have caused some of that.
mnp13 wrote:Well, here she is trying desparately to get Riggs to play with her. the quality isn't great, but it's from my phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDuoAPvmvIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z534obPE4_0
and yes, I know Riggs' body language is not all that friendly, but he looked genuinely confused "hmmm, should I ignore you, hump you or bite you....? decisions decisions decisions...."
mnp13 wrote:katiek0417 wrote:Also, as we talk about fighting "instinct" I wonder if it's appropriate to call it instinct. There was a psychology conference held in 1960, from which stemmed a book called "Instincts" (I don't own this book, however, it's cited in several of my Learning and Behavior textbooks)...according to the book, to truly be considered an instinct, the following criteria must be met. The behavior must:
1) be Automatic
2) be irresistible
3) be triggered by some event in the environment
4) occur at some point in development
5) occur in every member of the species
6) be unmodifiable
and 7) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training
The book goes on to say that given this definition, there are no instinctual behaviors in humans, but other species show these instincts when it comes to migration, hibernation, and breeding. Furthermore, in animals, if the correct learning is somehow kept from being learned, then the instinctual behaviors disappear. This suggests that rather than being instinctual, they are, instead, very strong, however limited, biological predispositions...
Isn't an infant nursing instinctual?
In regards to the 7 criteria, does the "amount" count or is it a yes/no thing?
In relation to #6, I don't feel that dog aggression is "unmodifiable" but it is controllable. Does that matter in the context of the study?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users