Pit bulls - The Breed of Peace

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I don't have any roommates either.
smile.png
Just wife & kids. I do get your point though, but I'd argue that dogs are fully optional; humans are not, at least if you want to continue our species.
Humanitys Best Friend: How Dogs May Have Helped Humans Beat the Neanderthals - The Atlantic

One of the most compelling -- and enduring -- mysteries in archaeology concerns the rise of early humans and the decline of Neanderthals. For about 250,000 years, Neanderthals lived and evolved, quite successfully, in the area that is now Europe. Somewhere between 45,000 and 35,000 years ago, early humans came along.

They proliferated in their new environment, their population increasing tenfold in the 10,000 years after they arrived; Neanderthals declined and finally died away.

What happened? What went so wrong for the Neanderthals -- and what went so right for us humans?

The cause, some theories go, may have been environmental, with Neanderthals' decline a byproduct of -- yikes -- climate change. It may have been social as humans developed the ability to cooperate and avail themselves of the evolutionary benefits of social cohesion. It may have been technological, with humans simply developing more advanced tools and hunting weapons that allowed them to snare food while their less-skilled counterparts starved away.

The Cambridge researchers Paul Mellars and Jennifer French have another theory, though. In a paper in the journal Science, they concluded that "numerical supremacy alone may have been a critical factor" in human dominance -- with humans simply crowding out the Neanderthals. Now, with an analysis in American Scientist, the anthropologist Pat Shipman is building on their work. After analyzing the Mellars and French paper and comparing it with the extant literature, Shipman has come to an intriguing conclusion: that humans' comparative evolutionary fitness owes itself to the domestication of dogs.

Yep. Man's best friend, Shipman suggests, might also be humanity's best friend. Dogs might have been the technology that allowed early humans to flourish.

Shipman analyzed the results of excavations of fossilized canid bones -- from Europe, during the time when humans and Neanderthals overlapped. Put together, they furnish some compelling evidence that early humans, first of all, engaged in ritualistic dog worship. Canid skeletons found at a 27,000-year-old site in Predmost?, of the Czech Republic, displayed the poses of early ritual burial. Drill marks in canid teeth found at the same site suggest that early humans used those teeth as jewelry -- and Paleolithic people, Shipman notes, rarely made adornments out of animals they simply used for food. There's also the more outlying fact that, like humans, dogs are rarely depicted in cave art -- a suggestion that cave painters might have regarded dogs not as the game animals they tended to depict, but as fellow-travelers.

Shipman speculates that the affinity between humans and dogs manifested itself mainly in the way that it would go on to do for many more thousands of years: in the hunt. Dogs would help humans to identify their prey; but they would also work, the theory goes, as beasts of burden -- playing the same role for early humans as they played for the Blackfeet and Hidatsa of the American West, who bred large, strong dogs specifically for hauling strapped-on packs. (Paleolithic dogs were big to begin with: They had, their skeletons suggest, a body mass of at least 70 pounds and a shoulder height of at least 2 feet -- which would make them, at minimum, the size of a modern-day German Shepherd.) Since transporting animal carcasses is an energy-intensive task, getting dogs to do that work would mean that humans could concentrate their energy on more productive endeavors: hunting, gathering, reproducing.

The possible result, Shipman argues, was a virtuous circle of cooperation -- one in which humans and their canine friends got stronger, together, over time.

There's another intriguing -- if conjecture-filled -- theory here, too. It could be, Shipman suggests, that dogs represented even more than companionate technologies to Paleolithic man. It could be that their cooperative proximity brought about its own effects on human evolution -- in the same way that the domestication of cattle led to humans developing the ability to digest milk. Shipman points to the "cooperative eye hypothesis," which builds on the observation that, compared to other primates, humans have highly visible sclerae (whites of the eyes). For purposes of lone hunting, sclerae represent a clear disadvantage: not only will your pesky eye-whites tend to stand out against a dark backdrop of a forest or rock, giving away your location, but they also reveal the direction of your gaze. It's hard to be a stealthy hunter when your eyes are constantly taking away your stealth.

Expressive eyes, however, for all their competitive disadvantage, have one big thing going for them: They're great at communicating. With early humans hunting in groups, "cooperative eyes" may have allowed them to "talk" with each other, silently and therefore effectively: windows to the soul that are also evolutionarily advantageous. And that, in turn, might have led to a more ingrained impulse toward cooperation. Human babies, studies have shown, will automatically follow a gaze once a connection is made. Eye contact is second nature to us; but it's a trait that makes us unique among our fellow primates.

Dogs, however, also recognize the power of the gaze. In a study conducted at Central European University, Shipman notes, "dogs performed as well as human infants at following the gaze of a speaker in tests in which the speaker's head is held still." Humans and their best friends share an affinity for eye contact -- and we are fairly unique in that affinity. There's a chance, Shipman says -- though there's much more work to be done before that chance can be converted even into a hypothesis -- that we evolved that affinity together.

"No genetic study has yet confirmed the prevalence or absence of white sclerae in Paleolithic modern humans or in Neanderthals," Shipman notes. "But if the white sclera mutation occurred more often among the former -- perhaps by chance -- this feature could have enhanced human-dog communication and promoted domestication."

Which is another way of saying that, to the extent dogs were an evolutionary technology, they may have been a technology that changed us for the better. The old truism -- we shape our tools, and afterward our tools shape us -- may be as old, and as true, as humanity itself.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,320
73,376
You'll find the same thing among cars too. It doesn't mean we start banning F-350s.
First, is that really true?

If you look at:
http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles...SUV-report.pdf

You'll see risk to other drivers for compact is ~35, for large cars is 30 and for minivans is 40. SUVs 55 and pickups are 100.

But if you were to make the same graph for compact, small, medium and large dogs it'd be like 1 for compact dogs and very high for large dogs.

Second, I don't think anyone is suggesting we ban large dogs. However when some 60% of fatalities involve a pit bull I wouldn't mind seeing some restriction on it. Even if it was something involving a class or license or whatever system that'd probably just be a waste of time and money...
 

Heylel

Trakanon Raider
3,602
428
Second, I don't think anyone is suggesting we ban large dogs. However when some 60% of fatalities involve a pit bull I wouldn't mind seeing some restriction on it. Even if it was something involving a class or license or whatever system that'd probably just be a waste of time and money...
I'd be fine with that for basically any dog, but more to protect the dogs than people. A better class of owners is going to give us a much better class of dogs.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Thats interesting.
I have Prof Shipman's book on the subject on preorder at Amazon supposed to be here Thursday. Its a very interesting hypothesis, interested in reading the arguments for it in more detail.
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
I think a dog license for some of the more troublesome breeds might not be a bad idea.

It really is mostly the class of owner though. Most of the people that I've known with pitts would never go attend a 5-10 hour on the weekend Community College course to go over dog safety. Even if it was free. I mean the people that get pitts are the "Oh, that's not patches!" type. Well, you keep fucking saying that and it will be Patches. Take the shit seriously, asshole. She's just a dog. It ain't her fault if it happens. But it sure as hell is somebody's fucking fault.
 

Intrinsic

Person of Whiteness
<Gold Donor>
14,140
11,459
When I was 6 a neighbor's Rottweiler got out of their backyard and came up to my friend and I playing in his front yard. We had been riding bikes, playing basketball, whatever you do at 6. He was 10 or so. We had dogs in the family so I was pretty comfortable around them. Anyways, this particular one went from letting us pet him to jumping me and attacking. Had me on the ground face down chomping on the back of my head. Few seconds later my biological father came out, drug the dog off me and across the street, then shot it twice and killed it. I was in the hospital for weeks with bad head injuries and a torn up left thigh. Still have bad scars. For a bit also had puncture marks in my back from the dog standing on to of me.

No idea at all what would have set him off. To the best of my memory of the situation we were only petting it. Neither of us were trouble makers, were both comfortable around dogs, and would not have antagonized a full sized Rott when I was a small 6 year old.

Even having been through all I that I still love dogs, even big ones. Things happen and sometimes it is a freak occurrence.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Second, I don't think anyone is suggesting we ban large dogs. However when some 60% of fatalities involve a pit bull I wouldn't mind seeing some restriction on it. Even if it was something involving a class or license or whatever system that'd probably just be a waste of time and money...
The problem is, years ago it was german shepherds that were seen as the bad dog, people who wanted 'tough' dogs got them. At that time, german shepherds had the worst record for bites. At various times the pattern has happened for doberman pinschers and rottweilers. Now pitbulls.

So if you do breed legislation for pitbulls, one everyone will just call their dogs "shepherd mix" or "terrier mix", and even if you do succeed in getting rid of pit bulls, these type of people will just gravitate to another large dog that they will treat like shit.
 

Cinge

Vyemm Raider
6,986
2,050
It's funny about the chows. I never heard about people talk about their aggressiveness until I got much older. I think we had 5 or 6 chows growing up and it was just the one that went bad. Hell I used to play football with one(I was probably 8 or 9), would do the whole "Blue 24, hut , hut, hike" and the dog would take off on hike(he would be crouched on his front paws waiting for me to say hike), I would run and tackle him. Yet the one that attacks me does it because I yell at him to stop barking at kids playing in the street. Just odd.

I do think anytime there is a history of violent behavior, mistreatment(which can cause a dog to do crazy things) ,escaping from enclosure/house(because owners know they are not friendly) or letting your dog run free, there should be higher repercussions for the owners. It might make people more aware of how they treat their dogs, how to handle/raise them and more cautious around them(especially if children are present).
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,320
73,376
The problem is, years ago it was german shepherds that were seen as the bad dog, people who wanted 'tough' dogs got them. At that time, german shepherds had the worst record for bites. At various times the pattern has happened for doberman pinschers and rottweilers. Now pitbulls.

So if you do breed legislation for pitbulls, one everyone will just call their dogs "shepherd mix" or "terrier mix", and even if you do succeed in getting rid of pit bulls, these type of people will just gravitate to another large dog that they will treat like shit.
I agree. Licensing them isn't the answer.
 

Lenardo

Vyemm Raider
3,543
2,454
my wife is a veterinarian, she has several pitbull clients.

she loves em- as dogs-for the most part IF THEY ARE WELL TRAINED- very nice very sweet dogs, and extremely stoic, will let her do ANYTHING to them- one new client she just got- again pitbull- had gotten RUN OVER, had about 25% of it's skin scrapped off due to being run over...and the next day was wanting Belly rubs and licking anyone who would pet it...

she has had a few bad pit bulls/pitbull crosses, and that was 100% the owner's fault for bad training.

for pets, we get shetland sheepdogs personally, we are about to get 2 new ones in the next year or so- our old ones died- then we had 3 kids so it's been several years since we had dogs.

she has had several rotties too that were just cuddle magnets as clients.

she will never ever get a german shepard- too many health issues due to overbreeding, same sort of thing is happening to labs and goldens (she has had more "discipline" issues with goldens than any other breed of dog)
 

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
It's funny about the chows. I never heard about people talk about their aggressiveness until I got much older. I think we had 5 or 6 chows growing up and it was just the one that went bad.
I've never met a Chow that wasn't a complete fucking psychopath towards anyone that didn't live in the house. Sure their owners get along with them, anyone else watch out. Seriously scary beasts most of the time.
 

BrotherWu

MAGA
<Silver Donator>
2,991
5,750
I owned a Chesapeake Bay Retriever who, at 6 years of age, suddenly became very territorial with strangers but was and always had been fine with other dogs. He would randomly lose his shit on people. For example, he just up chased down the adult daughter neighbor lady (who was not in our yard) and bit the back of her shirt and ripped itwhile wearing an invisible fence collar.He nipped at a few other people as well. 85 pounds of lean muscle so this was a problem.

I've done a fair amount of dog training, mind you, and this one was socialized when younger, but I sent him back to the breeder for 4 months of professional training and took the family several times to work with him. Brought him back home and few weeks later he was laying quietly by the door when my 8-year-old son and is younger female cousin came walking in and the dog growled, barked and lunged at the girl but ended up biting my son. It was weird.

5 minutes later I was on the phone with the breeder and a week later we surrendered him back to them and they got him into a new home. It was tough because we had had him as a puppy and he had been my kids' playmate and protector and something just snapped in him at some point. It just was not worth the risk.

I have some cousins who own pits and are always posting shit on Facebook about what harmless cuddly bugs they are. Fuck. That. I would not own one.
 

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
26,787
70,659
Every Newfoundland I've ever ran across thought it was a lap dog. I guess they mostly are? It's not like you can do much about the thing after it's laying on you.
 

Zastlyn

Peasant
233
34
I owned a Pit bull for over 13 years, and interacted with hundreds of them over that time. There are a lot of shitty pit bulls, for sure, I won't deny that. But the number one way to see if a pit bull is going to be shitty is by looking at the owner. Because they came to be known as the "badass" sort of gangster breed, more "badass" gangsters bought them, which leads to the shitty statistics they have now. I view shitty pit bulls the same way i view shitty kids. If you see some little kid in the ghetto, looking like a thug, you feel bad for the kid, and go "ah fuck, he had no chance". Same if I see a pit bull with a spiked collar around his neck. You know that dog ain't getting the proper training. You know he's going to be the cause of some problems. You think about what could have been.
 

Heylel

Trakanon Raider
3,602
428
Every Newfoundland I've ever ran across thought it was a lap dog. I guess they mostly are? It's not like you can do much about the thing after it's laying on you.
Yeah, the ones I have encountered have been big cuddlers too. Same with Leonbergers. A friend of mine had one that thought it was a lapdog. Every time it jumped on you it was like being sexually assaulted by Chewbacca.