I Have A Question About Pitbulls

[Loraine]

Judge Judy has just advised that the Pitbul has a jaw that 'locks' once it has a grip on its target.

Is this true? I have a feeling that I have previously read on this site that pitbulls do not and cannot 'lock' their jaws.

Just really curious.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Yes I saw the episode were Judge Judy said that. In other episodes she has also been critical of the breed.

No it is not true.

[Loraine]

Yes I saw the episode were Judge Judy said that. In other episodes she has also been critical of the breed.

No it is not true.

Thanks Lo Pan, it seems as if she really hates that breed.

[poodlefan]

Judge Judy knows diddly squat about dogs.

No, not true.

[APBT]

shes a joke.

[tdierikx]

No dog has a jaw that "locks" - some may have stronger jaw muscles though, that can hold very tight...

What Judge Judy knows about dogs you could place on a pinhead and still have plenty of room... grrr!

T.

[W Sibs]

no it's not true

she's a joke.

[sandgrubber]

The locking jaw might be something to submit to Mythbusters. . . . which I prefer to JJ.

You might want to look at the definition of 'game' thread under BSL. APBT's are, apparently, bred to be highly tenacious, determined dogs with a fighting spirit. But if there's a locking on, it's in the mind, not the jaw.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Well, no their not. Most APBT's today in this country are bred to be pets and are not game tested. Alot of people will say that as a way of bragging about the merits of the breed, but fact and fantasy are two different things.

All the bull breed standards (and standards for any breed) can say whatever they like, but truth is, if a dog is bred as a pet or a show dog, then its going to be what its going to be, far from any guarantee of being tenacious or highly determined.

[Snout Girl]

I had to take Sally to the emergency vet the other night as she was coughing badly.

she was treated by a young vet, lovely girl, really loved sally as she has grown up with border collies.

she was telling me how she has 2 dogs a pitbull and a blue heeler.

the pitbull was bought to her to put down and she signed the paperwork to say she had done so and took her home.

gorgeous dog (she had the dogs with her at work). i commented that it is not the breed that is the problem, its the idiots who condition the dogs to be vicious and get them involved in fighting rings.

she made a strange remark. she said 'oh, you cant change what a dog is bred for. border collies are a herding breed, you cant change that. pitbulls are a fighting breed, you cant change that either. its a shame as they make nice pets otherwise'.

i thought it was the environment/upbringing that turned dogs into 'vicious fighters' rather than any inbuilt genetic disposition to be 'a fighter'.

[Beaglelover:)]

I had to take Sally to the emergency vet the other night as she was coughing badly.

she was treated by a young vet, lovely girl, really loved sally as she has grown up with border collies.

she was telling me how she has 2 dogs a pitbull and a blue heeler.

the pitbull was bought to her to put down and she signed the paperwork to say she had done so and took her home.

gorgeous dog (she had the dogs with her at work). i commented that it is not the breed that is the problem, its the idiots who condition the dogs to be vicious and get them involved in fighting rings.

she made a strange remark. she said 'oh, you cant change what a dog is bred for. border collies are a herding breed, you cant change that. pitbulls are a fighting breed, you cant change that either. its a shame as they make nice pets otherwise'.

i thought it was the environment/upbringing that turned dogs into 'vicious fighters' rather than any inbuilt genetic disposition to be 'a fighter'.

Both the environment and genetics go hand in hand. With a good upbringing any dog no matter what breed will make a great pet.

Every owner no matter what breed they get, should be educated early on to know what their breed of choice was bred for. For example bull breeds are known to be people lovers however can have problems with other same sex dogs. A good educated owner will start soicalisation early on in life to minimize this trait in the breed and therefore create a well balanced dog.

Every breed has its faults, no breed is perfect, this is why the breed history enables owners to see what areas their dog needs work on. Every dog is different within the breed, but in general if you pair good genetics with a great environment you should end up with a great pet no matter what the breed.

[Sandra777]

i thought it was the environment/upbringing that turned dogs into 'vicious fighters' rather than any inbuilt genetic disposition to be 'a fighter'.

Not entirely. All dogs will fight just as all people will fight, given the right incentive/conditions.

You need to get your head around the fact that a Fighting Dog (as opposed to a dog which fights) is not "vicious", it was purpose bred for a reason, no different than a Border Collie being purpose bred to herd, a Labrador to retrieve, a Rottweiler to herd and guard. Our forebearers manipulated the natural tendencies of dogs to suit their purposes - the herding instinct is no more or less than a short-circuited hunting instinct, round up the prey so the pack can attack is a normal and instinctive behaviour.

Yes, certain breeds of dog are more "successful" if put in a position where they need to fight. This doesn't make them DA or vicious or dangerous to people, it makes them a product of their manipulated genes. However it is a very easy tendency to dumb down with training (not completely eliminate) and with breeding because it is a really unnatural genetic manipulation - no species of animal naturally fights without submitting even when beaten (they will either submit or run).

You need to understand that you cannot force a dog to be a Fighting Dog - a Fighting Dog needs to have the mindset not to submit even when loosing and this is inherited. Not all "fighting breed" dogs inherit it to the same degree and sometimes dogs of other breeds do inherit it, but by and large it is a genetic thing confined to a small range of breeds.

Of course you can chuck two dogs in a confined space and force them to fight, but this does not make them Fighting Dogs.

Training does have a certain bearing on it - giving the dog confidence with easy opponents, all sorts of horrible things can be done, but if the dog is confronted by a stronger dog and doesn't have the instinct to refuse to submit, all the training in the world won't turn a "cur" into a "Fighting Dog".

Personally I think the vet was being refreshingly honest.

[Jigsaw]

If you feel like a technical read THIS gives a comparison between a human jaw and dog jaw.

Part thereof:

The preceding article just skims the surface regarding the information on the TMJ

that is known in humans. Textbooks and scientific articles abound on the TMJ,

malocclusions, and diseases and disorders that affect humans. The mammalian

jaw can exert a force of tremendous strength. Any bite from any mammal, small

or large, can certainly cause damage. There is nothing out of the ordinary in jaw

structure or anatomy of the bull breeds. There is no “locking-jaw”. On rare

occasions the non-rigid hinge structure of humans can result in the joint “locking”.

Medical intervention is required to re-set the jaw properly. A similar situation in

carnivores would put their survival at risk. The strength of the bull breeds’ bite

comes from their tenacity to hold a grip, not from any physical or physiological

abnormality that gives them super strength.

(My bold)

[justin19801]

i thought it was the environment/upbringing that turned dogs into 'vicious fighters' rather than any inbuilt genetic disposition to be 'a fighter'.

Not entirely. All dogs will fight just as all people will fight, given the right incentive/conditions.

You need to get your head around the fact that a Fighting Dog (as opposed to a dog which fights) is not "vicious", it was purpose bred for a reason, no different than a Border Collie being purpose bred to herd, a Labrador to retrieve, a Rottweiler to herd and guard. Our forebearers manipulated the natural tendencies of dogs to suit their purposes - the herding instinct is no more or less than a short-circuited hunting instinct, round up the prey so the pack can attack is a normal and instinctive behaviour.

Yes, certain breeds of dog are more "successful" if put in a position where they need to fight. This doesn't make them DA or vicious or dangerous to people, it makes them a product of their manipulated genes. However it is a very easy tendency to dumb down with training (not completely eliminate) and with breeding because it is a really unnatural genetic manipulation - no species of animal naturally fights without submitting even when beaten (they will either submit or run).

You need to understand that you cannot force a dog to be a Fighting Dog - a Fighting Dog needs to have the mindset not to submit even when loosing and this is inherited. Not all "fighting breed" dogs inherit it to the same degree and sometimes dogs of other breeds do inherit it, but by and large it is a genetic thing confined to a small range of breeds.

Of course you can chuck two dogs in a confined space and force them to fight, but this does not make them Fighting Dogs.

Training does have a certain bearing on it - giving the dog confidence with easy opponents, all sorts of horrible things can be done, but if the dog is confronted by a stronger dog and doesn't have the instinct to refuse to submit, all the training in the world won't turn a "cur" into a "Fighting Dog".

Personally I think the vet was being refreshingly honest.

I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding of genetics. Selective breeding produces a line of dogs which is more likely to produce a successful fighting dog. Dogs from fighting lines (such as Peterbilt) did not produce successful fighters. Being polygenetic (such as many traits) it is quickly lost and BC from show lines are not likely to produce successful herders. The fact that APBTs have excelled at so many sports and tasks means there are other less easily explained attributes. Giving a dog a weaker opponent or a bait animal destroys it's usefulness as a fighter.

Another common misconception is that APBTs are not HA. Dogs such as Bullyson, Indian Bolio and some Corvino dogs (where the referee carried a club to defend himself in the pit) were human aggressive and highly bred. These lines are so dilute now as to be non-existent, but throwbacks no-doubt exist.

In the end the APBT is just a dog, an athletic one at that, but just a dog undeserving of the hype heaped upon it.

[sandgrubber]

Not entirely. All dogs will fight just as all people will fight, given the right incentive/conditions.

Yes, certain breeds of dog are more "successful" if put in a position where they need to fight.

You need to understand that you cannot force a dog to be a Fighting Dog - a Fighting Dog needs to have the mindset not to submit even when loosing and this is inherited. Not all "fighting breed" dogs inherit it to the same degree and sometimes dogs of other breeds do inherit it, but by and large it is a genetic thing confined to a small range of breeds.

Of course you can chuck two dogs in a confined space and force them to fight, but this does not make them Fighting Dogs.

Training does have a certain bearing on it - giving the dog confidence with easy opponents, all sorts of horrible things can be done, but if the dog is confronted by a stronger dog and doesn't have the instinct to refuse to submit, all the training in the world won't turn a "cur" into a "Fighting Dog".

Personally I think the vet was being refreshingly honest.

I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding of genetics. Selective breeding produces a line of dogs which is more likely to produce a successful fighting dog. Dogs from fighting lines (such as Peterbilt) did not produce successful fighters. Being polygenetic (such as many traits) it is quickly lost and BC from show lines are not likely to produce successful herders. The fact that APBTs have excelled at so many sports and tasks means there are other less easily explained attributes. Giving a dog a weaker opponent or a bait animal destroys it's usefulness as a fighter.

Another common misconception is that APBTs are not HA. Dogs such as Bullyson, Indian Bolio and some Corvino dogs (where the referee carried a club to defend himself in the pit) were human aggressive and highly bred. These lines are so dilute now as to be non-existent, but throwbacks no-doubt exist.

In the end the APBT is just a dog, an athletic one at that, but just a dog undeserving of the hype heaped upon it.

Given the hype and counter hype, I find it hard to be objective about APBTs, and wind up as a fence-sitter on this debate. If the debate is to be resolved, people are going to have to build better cases.

Lots of assertion being thrown around with little evidence, apart from long lists of anecdotes. Eg, in the above, Dogs from fighting lines (such as Peterbilt) did not produce successful fighters. Being polygenetic (such as many traits) it is quickly lost. The easy/biddable, moderate temperament in Labradors and many other Group 3 breeds is polygenetic, and tends to be present in Group 3 X-breeds. A Lab X kelpie is likely to be toned down from the high-strung, energetic, somewhat manic temperament that makes kelpies great herding dogs but dogs that require good management to make good pets. Also in the above: Giving a dog a weaker opponent or a bait animal destroys it's usefulness as a fighter. Totally unsupported by evidence, and I see no reason to believe it is true.

Edited March 6, 2010 by sandgrubber

[justin19801]

Easy bidability in dogs may or may not be polygenetic, we don't know because it is not actively bred for. A Lab x Kelpie is toned down due to lack of breeding for working ability. Labs are not bred for working ability. Lack of objectivity is fine, just don't confuse it with fact. There are dozens if not hundreds of keeps and conditioning programs published by dogmen when dogfighting was, if not legal, at least not prosectuted by the authorities, bait animals have never been mentioned. Since dogmen have been replaced by gangs I'm sure this has changed. There dogs are not in the same league as the likes of Peterbilt etc. You are correct in one respect that figures in all areas concerning dogs are rubbery at best.

[Baz+Rome]

I had to take Sally to the emergency vet the other night as she was coughing badly.

she was treated by a young vet, lovely girl, really loved sally as she has grown up with border collies.

she was telling me how she has 2 dogs a pitbull and a blue heeler.

the pitbull was bought to her to put down and she signed the paperwork to say she had done so and took her home.

gorgeous dog (she had the dogs with her at work). i commented that it is not the breed that is the problem, its the idiots who condition the dogs to be vicious and get them involved in fighting rings.

she made a strange remark. she said 'oh, you cant change what a dog is bred for. border collies are a herding breed, you cant change that. pitbulls are a fighting breed, you cant change that either. its a shame as they make nice pets otherwise'.

i thought it was the environment/upbringing that turned dogs into 'vicious fighters' rather than any inbuilt genetic disposition to be 'a fighter'. :D

Off topic but I would be pretty pissed if I took a dog to vets to be pts and vet signed paperwork to say it had been done but didn't and kept the dog.

[Sandra777]

I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding of genetics. Selective breeding produces a line of dogs which is more likely to produce a successful fighting dog. Dogs from fighting lines (such as Peterbilt) did not produce successful fighters. Being polygenetic (such as many traits) it is quickly lost and BC from show lines are not likely to produce successful herders. The fact that APBTs have excelled at so many sports and tasks means there are other less easily explained attributes. Giving a dog a weaker opponent or a bait animal destroys it's usefulness as a fighter.

In the end the APBT is just a dog, an athletic one at that, but just a dog undeserving of the hype heaped upon it.

Who said I was talking about APBT?

After 30+ years with the original pit dog, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, I think I have a faint understanding of how this specific genetic trait works (and believe me, it is alive and well in the SBT).

I do have problems reconciling the two conflicting statements I have put in italics. A successful line is more likely to produce the same trait. A successful line doesn't produce the same trait. That's a bob each way. IMO the reason the second line didn't reliably produce the trait was because the founder of the line was not prepotent for the trait (a fluke bred dog) OR was not genetically programmed to be successful but gained his (her?) success by 'luck' and training

Yes, it is certainly polygenic and is certainly quickly lost is not selected for, which is why I said it is a very unnatural genetic manipulation.