Few breeds seem to have the propensity to grab onto something and hold on in the manner pits do. Why is that? Because, none of these breeds were bred to handle large, AGGRESSIVE cattle. I ask again, how many of you pit owners have handled cattle, especially uncut bulls? If you haven't, if you've just watched them from the other side of the fence, then I'll suggest you try getting up close and personal with an animal that is not Daisy the dairy cow (which can still be a rough animal to handle, they will knock you about with their heads quite easily). Speaking of hard heads, would you say pits don't have them? They surely are copiously muscled, and with mighty big jaws to go along with, to boot.
You've found the single video of the single comparison that seems to be available. However, are you going to use this to say that a cocker spaniel's attack is going to have the same results as that of a pit? I don't think we can take the results from three representatives of their breeds as the end-all be-all in definitive science, do you?
This is the thing people are failing to appreiate, on an overall level, and it's really rather like fishkeepers who are so surprised that their fish ate that other fish and it wasn't "supposed" to. Of course, any dog is going to bite. But that Chihuahua that's so foul-tempered? It's going to barely break the skin. Put that aggression and personality into an animal with a relatively massive head and neck, what do you think is gonna happen?
The current situation as it stands now does not negate how the breed came to be in the first place, and frankly I fail to understand why anyone would insist that dog breeds were
not bred for specific traits. I mean, what else is the point of breeding? There's a reason why pit bull breeds are called what they are. The only thing modern breeders seem to be doing now, with the exception of those who breed actual working dogs, is to breed for type and conformation. We're not talking about individual dogs here, we're talking about breed types and making generalizations. For every instance of exception one can come up with, another can refute.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Ridgies were
not bred for guarding the farm, the stock, or for hunting lions, yes? If so, then why is it also known as the African Lion Hound? Why were they selected in the manner they were? Pick any other breed or breed type, and explain how it came to be if it
weren't because it was being bred for a purpose.
If so, then why are terriers even
called terriers? Why would border collies, when not presented with animals to herd, still feel the need to herd, even to the point of dangerous behaviors such as "herding" passing cars? Just because an individual within a breed does not display all breed characteristics does not equate to that breed NOT being bred for those very characteristics. I think you're really way off base in that assertion.
You didn't really read my post thoroughly. You're already on the defensive about your dog, and honestly you should be. You should be, specifically because of his size and power, on the lookout for any of these traits that might make him a dangerous animal. You're reading a bias where it doesn't exist, unless you're reading that comment about a nip from a pit being a little like a taste from a great white as a "bias". Personally, I DETEST allowing any dog to lick me. It makes my skin itch and it's just fucking creepy when they sneak the lick in, especially on the back of my leg.
Excuse me? I don't think you are anywhere close to knowing me well enough to draw any sort of comparison, even one like that.
Makes a good smoking partner.
except 
