# Bad rap



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

The transistion of being a family dog to a vicious killer begin with the outlawing of dog fighting. Please think long and hard before posting a reply. I for one do not condone dog fighting.


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

Huh? Are you asking of people agree with you and your statement? I think it was when sports illustrated ran a pit bull on one of their cover's with the headline vicious killer. Brought it to the forefront for wanna be hoodlums to think its cool.


----------



## Drei Raeuber (Feb 11, 2012)

904bullys said:


> The transistion of being a family dog to a vicious killer begin with the outlawing of dog fighting. Please think long and hard before posting a reply. I for one do not condone dog fighting.


This has got to be a joke... oke:


----------



## Shoes (Jan 31, 2012)

I would say from an objective timeline point of view... the evidence speaks for itself. Pitbulls were not persecuted until shortly after dog fighting was made illegal. Atleast that's what my relatively limited research suggests.


----------



## dylroche1 (Mar 14, 2010)

uhmmm.....


----------



## redog (Oct 14, 2005)

Shoes said:


> I would say from an objective timeline point of view... the evidence speaks for itself. Pitbulls were not persecuted until shortly after dog fighting was made illegal. Atleast that's what my relatively limited research suggests.


i think those who established pre 1976 working dogs were alot more goal orriented and bred for themselves. leaving them all in knowledgable and capable hands


----------



## KMdogs (Apr 22, 2011)

Drei Raeuber said:


> This has got to be a joke... oke:


Its no joke.. Prior to becoming a national crime these hounds were bred strictly for their function and ability as a pit dog.. We can argue right or wrong in the ethics aspect of this however it is in fact irrelevant.. There were rules followed and anyone in the sport pre 76' did it as humanely and ethically as possible..

Now, fast forward post 1976.. Some dogmen stayed in and risked it all, others immediately "resigned" and gave away their yards.. Of course, there is more to the story than this however that is the general out come aside from also moving out of the country.. ANYWAY, after the AWC was passed and took into effect, these hounds, game dogs, curs alike were readily available to a general public that had NO business owning, feeding and keeping these hounds.. Very few had experience with a high drive Bulldog let alone understood the hounds..

The other aspect of course is once these were available thugs that heard the stories or knew people involved in the sport all of a sudden wanted one for protection.. After all, they are raw performers so they MUST be HA... Then the piss poor breeding practices started with breeding these high drive hounds for all sorts of reasons.. Peddling as money bags, "protection", crossing with other dogs for no other reason than to have a "badass dog yo".. Before these doggers could even blink an eye, the damage was catastrophic and so rapid it was a done deal.. The Bulldog, the American Pit Bull Terrier.. Was now in the hands of the general public..

In the early 1980s S.I put on the cover a "pit bull" that was barking, drooling and had a very aggressive demeanor.. In big, bold writing exclaimed "Beware of this dog!".. Now what do you think happens next? Every low life thug immediately wants one, every drug dealing gang banger says oh snap got have it! The significant down fall of the 90s and 00s of these Bulldogs went in full force.. The rest, well we all know.. Rap videos feature, all of a sudden in the news 24/7, BSL spreads like wild fire, underground fighting that is completely and utterly inhumane, it all goes down hill..

The simple fact is, agree with it or disagree, before 1976 and when it was in its National prime.. The pit dog was in the right hands, bred towards the right function and because of this, stability, mentality, etc followed suit.. THE most stable hounds across the world is purposely build machines.. Respectfully so.. NO world class hound can be faulty in body and mind.. 100% all or not at all..

Of course, there is a great deal of information missing from this however the bulk of it.. Its in black and white


----------



## Kingsgurl (Dec 16, 2011)

ames said:


> Huh? Are you asking of people agree with you and your statement? I think it nhan when sports illustrated ran the cover with the headline vicious killer. Brought it to the forefront for wanna be hoodlums to think its cool.


I went to rep you for this post and clicked the report post thingy (damn phone :stick

The Sports Illustrated cover really brought the breed under harsh public scrutiny, as well as attracting a lot of people to the breed for the wrong reasons (those that wanted 'tough' dogs, 'killer' dogs or your general all purpose penis enlarger 'badass' dog) Soon after that, you began to see the trend toward big, overdone dogs and the media began ferreting out stories involving 'pit bull' maulings. It is unfortunate that the age of instant information (and misinformation) coincided with that story.
IMO, the illegality of dog fighting didn't play a major role. Even when it was legal, most people were pretty polarized on the subject. However, early on and up until quite recently, the DOGS involved in fight busts were seen as 'bad'. I think there has been a very clear public shift started away from that mindset in recent years, though it has been a long road to reach that point, a point where the dogs are viewed as victims of the crime, rather than the perpetrators.


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

:goodpost: KM, I also agree to some extent that if these dogs had just stayed in the hands of dogmen and fighting was not made illegal, they probably would not ever be in the situation they are in now. But then I would not have my boy I love now, so its a catch 22 I think, but that's not what the OP was asking (I dont THINK lol) so I dont need to go there.



Kingsgurl said:


> I went to rep you for this post and clicked the report post thingy (damn phone :stick
> 
> The Sports Illustrated cover really brought the breed under harsh public scrutiny, as well as attracting a lot of people to the breed for the wrong reasons (those that wanted 'tough' dogs, 'killer' dogs or your general all purpose penis enlarger 'badass' dog) Soon after that, you began to see the trend toward big, overdone dogs and the media began ferreting out stories involving 'pit bull' maulings. It is unfortunate that the age of instant information (and misinformation) coincided with that story.
> IMO, the illegality of dog fighting didn't play a major role. Even when it was legal, most people were pretty polarized on the subject. However, early on and up until quite recently, the DOGS involved in fight busts were seen as 'bad'. I think there has been a very clear public shift started away from that mindset in recent years, though it has been a long road to reach that point, a point where the dogs are viewed as victims of the crime, rather than the perpetrators.


I agree, thankfully people are realizing its more about the actual things the dogs are put through and look at them as individuals, not a fighting dog. Thank goodness there have been so many willing to undertake that task to prove people wrong and prove that they can be rehabilitated with little scars or damage (except on the outside of course) I will say it is the one good thing to come out of MV case was the saving of the innocent dogs who were a victim of circumstance is now common practice, not automatic death sentence as it was prior to MV case..


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

No thats exactly what I was stating.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

The bulldog is long gone my friends. All we have now is a lovely and hopefully a working representation


----------



## rodrigo (Jun 28, 2011)

interesting irony


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

904bullys said:


> No thats exactly what I was stating.


what is? what are you talking about lol


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

A dog not bred or used for their original purpose is no longer that dog at all, whether for good or bad


----------



## rodrigo (Jun 28, 2011)

you are basically saying a tiger in a zoo is no longer a tiger.

u do make a valid point. but as humans evolve so will animals BECAUSE of human evolution unfortunately


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

Understood but 90% of "pitbulls" are nothing more than youd find at a pound.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

A tiger at the zoo still serves the same purpose as one in the wild and hasnt changed in thousands of years. Were talking under a half century for bulldogs in there proven form a little over a century since there existence


----------



## Drei Raeuber (Feb 11, 2012)

I really don't know if I like what I'm reading here. It almost sounds like some of you are advocating dog fights. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

Not at all but the present and future would have never had existed without a past and dog fighting now is more gruesome and less humane now than it was when it was legal. Still wrong regardless though


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

Pardon my grammer and vocab.


----------



## Drei Raeuber (Feb 11, 2012)

904bullys said:


> Not at all but the present and future would have never had existed without a past and dog fighting now is more gruesome and less humane now than it was when it was legal. Still wrong regardless though


While I'm fluent with the language, depending how something is worded I read the wrong thing into it. So forgive me if I ask stupid sounding questions. It helps me to understand the wording better.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

I can assure you my friend I probley sound pretty stupid as well but I stand firm in my convictions


----------



## Shoes (Jan 31, 2012)

I have to admit, I don't think the government should have made dog fighting illegal. Before you flame me, this is not to say I condone the act. I just think it's not the government's place to legislate this. And, as has been stated, it's clear that the policy has resulted in more inhumane treatment of the animals as well as putting the animals in dangerous hands where they really do become a danger to society. A clear example, I think, of the unintended consequences of the government overstepping it's bounds.


----------



## rodrigo (Jun 28, 2011)

the idea is sexy and enticing...and in the end it is 100% wrong. but lets say we live in the 6th dimension where things are different ....even if you legalized it today you would have ????? u would have chaos ....any imbecile now can get a pit bull , mix or not who cares...and start fighting them on the street for all the government care right?

nice argument but completely wrong


----------



## Shoes (Jan 31, 2012)

It is true that legalizing it today would result in big problems as you stated. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it should never have been made illegal in '76. Again just to clarify... I'm not a dog fighter.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

I never said it should then or now be legal to fight dogs. Im just saying that its more gruesome and inhummane now than it was pre 76. The dog are also hated more now by society than they were pre 76.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

Also as much as youll be offended the dogs of now have no where near as stable of temperment as they did then. Period.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

Sorry I mean as consistent temperment


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

1 SPECIFIC PURPOSE. When dogs are bred for an array of different purposes is when things go haywire. The apbt is an entirely to new of a breed, bred into to many sub breeds. Yes byb plays a majority part. But no wonder everything at the pound is a pit.


----------



## Shoes (Jan 31, 2012)

What do you mean by consistent temperament?


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

Consistent temperment


----------



## Shoes (Jan 31, 2012)

904bullys said:


> Consistent temperment


I guess I'll be in the dark...


----------



## Kingsgurl (Dec 16, 2011)

904bullys said:


> I never said it should then or now be legal to fight dogs. *Im just saying that its more gruesome and inhummane now than it was pre 76.* The dog are also hated more now by society than they were pre 76.


You lost me here. How so?



> Also as much as youll be offended the dogs of now have no where near as stable of temperment as they did then. Period.


Over breeding without regard to temperament leads to that, add in some numb nuts who think it's 'bad ass' if the dog is 'protective' and there you go. HOWEVER, this didn't start all of a sudden in 76 with dog fighting becoming illegal. There have always been people involved with the breed who weren't exactly altruistic and put their own needs above that of the breed. (one could argue all of them if you wanted to go for the dog fighting is morally reprehensible angle, but that's a whole other ball of wax)

There are some very famous dogs who were known man biters that were heavily bred because they excelled in the box. There are plenty of dogs who were bred with extreme shyness issues, dogs whom the owners had to 'walk the chain' to approach, pretty much the antithesis of the confident dog the breed is supposed to be.


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

Shoes said:


> It is true that legalizing it today would result in big problems as you stated. But that's not what I'm saying. * I'm saying it **should never have been made illegal in '76.* Again just to clarify... I'm not a dog fighter.


although I understand the breed was founded for the purpose and without that being the purpose I might not have the dog I have. I do know if it WAS still legal I would most surely not. Of course it should have been made illegal in '76, maybe if it was even earlier the situation could have been different. Why should it never have been made illegal?



904bullys said:


> I never said it should then or now be legal to fight dogs. Im just saying that its more gruesome and inhummane now than it was pre 76. The dog are also hated more now by society than they were pre 76.


I agree they are hated more now than pre 76 but I don't think making dog fighting illegal is what made society fear them at all. It was some dog men releasing their kennels to whoever and whomever. It was them trying to make some money since they were now unable to win any at that "sport" and needed to survive. Many things caused the influx and then sports illustrated article set the ball in motion. I also would argue the inhumane part. How old are you? How are you to say what is or was humane pre or post? That's a loaded statement IMO



Shoes said:


> I guess I'll be in the dark...


What he is meaning by it (I take it as this anyway) is before dogs would be proven or have a purpose before they would just be bred, as many BYB do now. Shelters have thousands of dogs that are bull breeds that some argue if dog fighting was kept legal, and the APBT out of the hands of the common man, they would probably not be filling up and being PTS when the shelters are too full or they drive is too much to adopt out. I agree and disagree to different points of that argument, personally. But consistent temperament was gained when breeders made sure the dogs they bred were not HA, for one. They made sure they were sound proven dogs or the would be culled. They would be tested for their worth and when pass these tests only then would they be bred. Any dog not going to meet that standard would have been culled or never bred again to get consistency. Temperament is basically looking at all the natural predisposition of a dog and then take in account their combination of mental and physical traits. At least that's my understanding. Is that what you were asking?


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

For at least the 5th time scratching dogs is NEVER humane. All you have to do is a little research watch a few videos outside of this forum to realize fighting then and now are like comparring apples to oranges. Both fruit yes but certainly not the same kind. Talk to some dogmen from then and now.


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

I turned 28 yesterday. A little research and listening to men who actually been there go alot farter than age


----------



## Drei Raeuber (Feb 11, 2012)

904bullys said:


> For at least the 5th time scratching dogs is NEVER humane. All you have to do is a little research watch a few videos outside of this forum to realize fighting then and now are like comparring apples to oranges. Both fruit yes but certainly not the same kind. Talk to some dogmen from then and now.


Seriously?

You do realize that it has just been as babaric as it is nowadays. We just don't know about it because there wasn't an instant media, youtube, facebook or twitter back then.

Plus, everything thats in the past has been better. It's getting idealized, glorified, warm fuzzy feelings and all the bad stuff is left out.

Good grief, I can't believe you people. You think it's the societies fault that the Pit is demonized? LOOK AT THIS TOPIC and read what you are actually saying and then sit down a minute and THINK about what you said!


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

904bullys said:


> For at least the 5th time scratching dogs is NEVER humane. All you have to do is a little research watch a few videos outside of this forum to realize fighting then and now are like comparring apples to oranges. Both fruit yes but certainly not the same kind. Talk to some dogmen from then and now.


Yeah there are some people who have tried to convince me of that as well but I tend to not believe things I don't know about first hand. That's why I asked your age to know if you had been there. No way was it humane then or now IMO.

Jut because a child loved ice cream doesn't mean that its good for them and they can live off just ice cream. The kid will look to you, the adult to care for them. Same with dogs. Those people didn't do anyone Or dog any favors. Tjese dogs wanted to do anything to please their master no matter what. If they thought [ ] was the answer to pleasing them they would do it. The other argument is people say these dogs were not force they loved it. Brings me back my ice cream comment. It's up to us to make sure they have other outlets not the barbaric [ ]. I not saying this is your argument but most people feel it was humane because the dogs wanted to fight they loved the fight itself and that they were not forced. I disagree.

I would not want to increase hits or their money the money they get by watching and I don't thInk others should either.


----------



## ames (Jun 6, 2010)

Drei Raeuber said:


> Seriously?
> 
> You do realize that it has just been as babaric as it is nowadays. We just don't know about it because there wasn't an instant media, youtube, facebook or twitter back then.
> 
> ...


Agree with your first two paragraphs. What the what is up with the third. How is it my fault society views these dogs as baby killers instead of the gem they really are?


----------



## 904bullys (Jan 8, 2012)

ames said:


> Yeah there are some people who have tried to convince me of that as well but I tend to not believe things I don't know about first hand. That's why I asked your age to know if you had been there. No way was it humane then or now IMO.
> 
> Jut because a child loved ice cream doesn't mean that its good for them and they can live off just ice cream. The kid will look to you, the adult to care for them. Same with dogs. Those people didn't do anyone Or dog any favors. Tjese dogs wanted to do anything to please their master no matter what. If they thought [ ] was the answer to pleasing them they would do it. The other argument is people say these dogs were not force they loved it. Brings me back my ice cream comment. It's up to us to make sure they have other outlets not the barbaric [ ]. I not saying this is your argument but most people feel it was humane because the dogs wanted to fight they loved the fight itself and that they were not forced. I disagree.
> 
> I would not want to increase hits or their money the money they get by watching and I don't thInk others should either.


excellent post. props to ya for a rational non argumentative post


----------



## rodrigo (Jun 28, 2011)

i think i can explain what our dear friend is trying to say......


the pit bulls where owned by a tight circle of professionals ..... and those dogs would never see society out and about , so the ONLY bad news on the breed came from dog fights but nothing else spilled into society.


once made illegal .....well then the hoodlums take over because now any @hole can make a buck and no one on the street is going to invest in any real training as a game rather than a quick gruesome buck.


the problem 904 is that u cannot pick between which is more inhumane....u try to stop it and if it leads to a spill into society then u try to stop it in a new way.....


i love pit bulls, ... matter fact i just found out last night that my cousin changed her mind about giving us delilah and im completely heartbroken most likely will go rescue a female soon. but i am also NOT totally unaware that this overpopulation in the end might only be controlled in a single bloody way.


----------



## wncpulldawgs (Feb 9, 2012)

I think that everyone breeds these dogs for a reason some is bad reasons some are good but if you really look at the bred and how many go to the pound and that are in the paper and on hoobly and other places that you can sell pups or adult dogs on. Here's where i see things different i'm from a ******* family but my grandpa is dead and gone but he said this if you breed 2 chit eater your going to have chit eaters now that my friend is where the BYB'S have and will mess the breed up i'm sorry if this side notes this tread but my god every body owns a apbt these days in time they get it and can't control it it goes to the pound then there's some that don't know how to properly train one and it bites a child or jane doe off the street but they blame the dog yes it was used to fight in the pit from every thing from bulls bears and ect but the people bred them for a reason other than fighting


----------

