Prestigious BBC nature photo contest controversy

I agree with you Caat. It's best for us, and better for the judges, if we all judge a picture on the merits presented by the photograph

I visited Bristol Museum this week, where all the winner, runners up and commended photographs are hung for public viewing. It's a wonderful and inspirational experience to see all the offerings on display. The winner, the wolf, is a wonderful capture whether it is wild or tame. The composition and post-production is excellent and I assume the picture won on it's merits. I noted other highly commended pictures which were (IANAL, but a stag with foliage silhouette strongly resembled a stag with foliage colour print by the same photographer from a previous year) almost certainly taken prior to 2009, so perhaps the leniency of the judges is wider than assumed.

The thing that stood out for me was how many Nikon D300 shots were on display (I shoot Canon 7D) and how many of the younger photographers appeared to own D300's... how likely is that? I was glad to see point and shoots there too, by the way. Composition is the key.

Ultimately there's no point to this argument. Is the picture relevant or not? Is it good (enough) or not? Sit in a cage with the wolf and tell me if it's wild life or not...
--
|\ http://www.rosher.net |\

There is no question. Anyone who has any serious experience with wolves and images of wolves can easily see that these are not the same animal. Case closed...

Lin

Lin Evans said:

There is no question. Anyone who has any serious experience with wolves and images of wolves can easily see that these are not the same animal. Case closed...

Lin

Click to expand...

Well there we are then. Simple as that. Why didn't you pop in fifteen days ago instead of fifteen minutes ago, we could have all gone home happy in the knowledge that the answer was here all along, if only we had looked for it.
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Mark Rosher said:

I agree with you Caat. It's best for us, and better for the judges, if we all judge a picture on the merits presented by the photograph

I visited Bristol Museum this week, where all the winner, runners up and commended photographs are hung for public viewing. It's a wonderful and inspirational experience to see all the offerings on display. The winner, the wolf, is a wonderful capture whether it is wild or tame. The composition and post-production is excellent and I assume the picture won on it's merits. I noted other highly commended pictures which were (IANAL, but a stag with foliage silhouette strongly resembled a stag with foliage colour print by the same photographer from a previous year) almost certainly taken prior to 2009, so perhaps the leniency of the judges is wider than assumed.

The thing that stood out for me was how many Nikon D300 shots were on display (I shoot Canon 7D) and how many of the younger photographers appeared to own D300's... how likely is that? I was glad to see point and shoots there too, by the way. Composition is the key.

Ultimately there's no point to this argument. Is the picture relevant or not? Is it good (enough) or not? Sit in a cage with the wolf and tell me if it's wild life or not...

Click to expand...

I suppose in that case that pictures that are completely fabricated in Photoshop should be allowed too?

By the way, I would much rather get into a cage with a wild wolf than with a domesticated pit bull. Maybe pit bulls should be considered "wild life" too, on the premise that they might bite a person that gets into a cage with them? How about poodles?

You can (go home happy in the knowledge that the answer was here all along, if only you had looked for it).

It's "clearly" not the same animal. The only thing they have in common is that they are both wolves of "similar" color and markings. Literally "thousands" of wolves share this color and similar markings.

The muzzle color line along the jaw is quite a different shape, the color of the ruff is clearly different. The wolf pictured on the right is clearly older and more mature than the one on the left. It has a shorter muzzle. Damage to the ear is not a definitive issue either way. Neither is the supposed "scar" along the muzzle under the eye.

The rubble wall of rocks does not exist in the photo from the preserve and moving such a wall would be a major undertaking. The rocks on either side of the gate and those in the image in question are not even remotely the same. The "only" thing remotely similar is part of the tree line and from the quality of the image which has been doctored by raising the levels, even that is questionable.

The so called wolf expert who believes that it's strange to see a wolf "jumping" over a gate has evidently little experience with wolves anywhere near fences and gates. This behavior is not at all unusual for wolves, coyotes and other wild canines. I've seen this type behavior for over 40 years in wild wolves, in wild coyotes, etc., so this makes me question the experience of this "wolf expert." One doesn't "train" a wolf to jump fences or do "tricks" like a domestic dog, even a semi-domesticated wolf (they are never truly domesticated).

If the authenticity of the photo rests on this being the same wolf, the case closed. It's not.

Lin

D P O'neil said:

Lin Evans said:

There is no question. Anyone who has any serious experience with wolves and images of wolves can easily see that these are not the same animal. Case closed...

Lin

Click to expand...

Well there we are then. Simple as that. Why didn't you pop in fifteen days ago instead of fifteen minutes ago, we could have all gone home happy in the knowledge that the answer was here all along, if only we had looked for it.
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Click to expand...

What on Earth would lead you to say such a thing? American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are some of the friendliest and best pets a person could want. Their aggressive nature toward other canines has zero relationship to aggression toward humans. They are by nature one of the "least" human aggressive breeds.

Over fifty years of breeding and training American Pit Bull Terriers I have never had a single instance of aggression toward humans with any of my dogs or any of the thousands I've been around.

Are there some genetically "bad" American Pit Bull Terriers which are human aggressive? Of course there are, just like there are bad Cocker Spaniels (which are statistically far more likely to bite you) or bad Golden Retrievers or Bad Labs, etc. Good breeders don't keep or breed bad stock. It's too bad the same can't be said for humans. There are bad humans as well. However, the vast majority of instances of "bad dogs" of "any" breed come from bad environments. They come from people intentionally trying to make them human aggressive.

Do yourself a giant favor and do some serious research on American Pit Bull Terriers because you're way off base....

Best regards,

Lin

Rat Salad said:

By the way, I would much rather get into a cage with a wild wolf than with a domesticated pit bull. Maybe pit bulls should be considered "wild life" too, on the premise that they might bite a person that gets into a cage with them? How about poodles?

Click to expand...

Lin Evans said:

What on Earth would lead you to say such a thing? American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are some of the friendliest and best pets a person could want. Their aggressive nature toward other canines has zero relationship to aggression toward humans. They are by nature one of the "least" human aggressive breeds.

Click to expand...

The fact that they are by nature and breed aggressive toward other dogs should be warning enough for any sensible person.

Member said:

Over fifty years of breeding and training American Pit Bull Terriers I have never had a single instance of aggression toward humans with any of my dogs or any of the thousands I've been around.

Are there some genetically "bad" American Pit Bull Terriers which are human aggressive? Of course there are, just like there are bad Cocker Spaniels (which are statistically far more likely to bite you) or bad Golden Retrievers or Bad Labs, etc. Good breeders don't keep or breed bad stock. It's too bad the same can't be said for humans. There are bad humans as well. However, the vast majority of instances of "bad dogs" of "any" breed come from bad environments. They come from people intentionally trying to make them human aggressive.

Do yourself a giant favor and do some serious research on American Pit Bull Terriers because you're way off base....

Click to expand...

"News organizations reported 23 fatal dog attacks in the United States in 2008, with most of these attacks (15, or 65%) involving pit bull-type dogs."

Twenty years ago we had no such dogs in NZ. Politicians were warned about allowing this dangerous breed into the country, our lawmakers being as inept as any in the world decided they knew best. To-day we are reaping the rewards of their ineptitude.

Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Lin Evans said:

What on Earth would lead you to say such a thing? American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are some of the friendliest and best pets a person could want. Their aggressive nature toward other canines has zero relationship to aggression toward humans. They are by nature one of the "least" human aggressive breeds.

Over fifty years of breeding and training American Pit Bull Terriers I have never had a single instance of aggression toward humans with any of my dogs or any of the thousands I've been around.

Are there some genetically "bad" American Pit Bull Terriers which are human aggressive? Of course there are, just like there are bad Cocker Spaniels (which are statistically far more likely to bite you) or bad Golden Retrievers or Bad Labs, etc. Good breeders don't keep or breed bad stock. It's too bad the same can't be said for humans. There are bad humans as well. However, the vast majority of instances of "bad dogs" of "any" breed come from bad environments. They come from people intentionally trying to make them human aggressive.

Do yourself a giant favor and do some serious research on American Pit Bull Terriers because you're way off base....

Best regards,

Lin
Rat Salad wrote:

Click to expand...

You might be well advised to take your own advice. There is a very good reason that Pit Bull Terriers are covered by The Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK, and they have a rather unpleasant habit of killing children over here (admittedly that is probably as much to do with the owners, as the dogs themselves).

The data for Dog Bite Fatalities in the US and UK is easily sourced on the net, and it does not shed a favourable light onto the Pit Bulls. DPO highlights a some of the facts on his post.

As for Spaniels, I have known several that will mouth, but very seldom to actually bite; the same applies to Labs, and that is in a shooting enviroment where the dog's blood is up.

INTERESTING,
my view is this
the photo in question is a beautiful capture. IT IS WELL POST PROCESSED.
It should be judged on that basis alone'
A WOLF IS A WILD ANIMAL
If the judges wish to rewrite the rules , do it after this case
I say again, the photo is beautiful on its own merits and well worth first.

Lin Euans said:

There is no question. Anyone who has any serious experience with wolves and images of wolves can easily see that these are not the same animal. Case closed...

Lin

Click to expand...

--

If you go into Home Depot and someone offers to help you and he is not an employee, you are in Canada

Lin Evans said:

What on Earth would lead you to say such a thing? American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers are some of the friendliest and best pets a person could want. Their aggressive nature toward other canines has zero relationship to aggression toward humans. They are by nature one of the "least" human aggressive breeds.

Over fifty years of breeding and training American Pit Bull Terriers I have never had a single instance of aggression toward humans with any of my dogs or any of the thousands I've been around.

Are there some genetically "bad" American Pit Bull Terriers which are human aggressive? Of course there are, just like there are bad Cocker Spaniels (which are statistically far more likely to bite you) or bad Golden Retrievers or Bad Labs, etc. Good breeders don't keep or breed bad stock. It's too bad the same can't be said for humans. There are bad humans as well. However, the vast majority of instances of "bad dogs" of "any" breed come from bad environments. They come from people intentionally trying to make them human aggressive.

Do yourself a giant favor and do some serious research on American Pit Bull Terriers because you're way off base....

Best regards,

Lin

Click to expand...

My point was mainly about whether getting into a cage with a wolf is somehow representative of how wild they are. Wolves in the wild don't attack people. Domesticated dogs, especially certain breeds, are responsible for more injuries and deaths than any wild animal, in or out of cages. Just ask any emergency room doctor.

The potential tendency of any animal to bite someone in a cage is not a good representation of how "wild" it is. If the potential tendency of any creatures to bite or attack someone in a cage were the standard for determining how wild they are we would have to consider other humans as the wildest creature of all, since humans are more dangerous to other humans (and everything else) than any "wild" animal, and it doesn't matter if they're caged together or not.

Member said:

Rat Salad said:

By the way, I would much rather get into a cage with a wild wolf than with a domesticated pit bull. Maybe pit bulls should be considered "wild life" too, on the premise that they might bite a person that gets into a cage with them? How about poodles?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lin Evans said:

The so called wolf expert who believes that it's strange to see a wolf "jumping" over a gate has evidently little experience with wolves anywhere near fences and gates.

Click to expand...

With regard to the wolf I tend to agree,
yet I think you need a little more perspicacity.
The wolf expert is not 'so called' in the least,
but rather more an expert of the beast.

His good credentials can easily be found,
searching Google and a few clicks around.
Although his verdict doesn't make perfect sense,
one can't deny his experience.

The oddest part of this episode:
that the photographer almost responds in code.
Why accuse those who raised the question?
Simply show the evidence and defy the suggestion!

Surely, many pictures must still exist,
to show the wolf on its repeated quest,
Which would demonstrate purported behaviour
and be the famous competition's saviour.

All doubts about the comings and goings,
of one wolf in another wolf's clothing,
would certainly be settled, once and for all,
and lift forever this gloomy pall.

--
2010 : My new year's resolution - to be a year of poetry!

Lin Evans said:

You can (go home happy in the knowledge that the answer was here all along, if only you had looked for it).

It's "clearly" not the same animal. The only thing they have in common is that they are both wolves of "similar" color and markings. Literally "thousands" of wolves share this color and similar markings.

The muzzle color line along the jaw is quite a different shape, the color of the ruff is clearly different. The wolf pictured on the right is clearly older and more mature than the one on the left. It has a shorter muzzle. Damage to the ear is not a definitive issue either way. Neither is the supposed "scar" along the muzzle under the eye.

The rubble wall of rocks does not exist in the photo from the preserve and moving such a wall would be a major undertaking. The rocks on either side of the gate and those in the image in question are not even remotely the same. The "only" thing remotely similar is part of the tree line and from the quality of the image which has been doctored by raising the levels, even that is questionable.

The so called wolf expert who believes that it's strange to see a wolf "jumping" over a gate has evidently little experience with wolves anywhere near fences and gates. This behavior is not at all unusual for wolves, coyotes and other wild canines. I've seen this type behavior for over 40 years in wild wolves, in wild coyotes, etc., so this makes me question the experience of this "wolf expert." One doesn't "train" a wolf to jump fences or do "tricks" like a domestic dog, even a semi-domesticated wolf (they are never truly domesticated).

Click to expand...

You might find this site interesting. Click on the examples of wolf training.

http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html

Member said:

If the authenticity of the photo rests on this being the same wolf, the case closed. It's not.

Lin

D P O'neil said:

Lin Evans said:

There is no question. Anyone who has any serious experience with wolves and images of wolves can easily see that these are not the same animal. Case closed...

Lin

Click to expand...

Well there we are then. Simple as that. Why didn't you pop in fifteen days ago instead of fifteen minutes ago, we could have all gone home happy in the knowledge that the answer was here all along, if only we had looked for it.
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

aardvark7 said:

Lin Evans said:

The so called wolf expert who believes that it's strange to see a wolf "jumping" over a gate has evidently little experience with wolves anywhere near fences and gates.

Click to expand...

With regard to the wolf I tend to agree,
yet I think you need a little more perspicacity.
The wolf expert is not 'so called' in the least,
but rather more an expert of the beast.

His good credentials can easily be found,
searching Google and a few clicks around.
Although his verdict doesn't make perfect sense,
one can't deny his experience.

The oddest part of this episode:
that the photographer almost responds in code.
Why accuse those who raised the question?
Simply show the evidence and defy the suggestion!

Surely, many pictures must still exist,
to show the wolf on its repeated quest,
Which would demonstrate purported behaviour
and be the famous competition's saviour.

All doubts about the comings and goings,
of one wolf in another wolf's clothing,
would certainly be settled, once and for all,
and lift forever this gloomy pall.

Click to expand...

Well said, in more ways than one.

Member said:

--
2010 : My new year's resolution - to be a year of poetry!

Click to expand...

Mark Rosher said:

I agree with you Caat. It's best for us, and better for the judges, if we all judge a picture on the merits presented by the photograph

I visited Bristol Museum this week, where all the winner, runners up and commended photographs are hung for public viewing. It's a wonderful and inspirational experience to see all the offerings on display. The winner, the wolf, is a wonderful capture whether it is wild or tame. The composition and post-production is excellent and I assume the picture won on it's merits. I noted other highly commended pictures which were (IANAL, but a stag with foliage silhouette strongly resembled a stag with foliage colour print by the same photographer from a previous year) almost certainly taken prior to 2009, so perhaps the leniency of the judges is wider than assumed.

The thing that stood out for me was how many Nikon D300 shots were on display (I shoot Canon 7D) and how many of the younger photographers appeared to own D300's... how likely is that? I was glad to see point and shoots there too, by the way. Composition is the key.

Ultimately there's no point to this argument. Is the picture relevant or not? Is it good (enough) or not? Sit in a cage with the wolf and tell me if it's wild life or not...
--
|\ http://www.rosher.net |\

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. If the contest has rules, then those rules need be enforced for all entrants because the others, who lost, were bound by them.

Now if the contest is just to produce an image using any means whatsoever, then we can judge based solely on the merits of the image. Perhaps the way to address cheating is to make cheating impossible by removing all rules.

Here, however, there were rules and there may be a violation. I can't see dismissing the rules and accepting this image, if it is a rule breaker, just because it's a nice image.
--

-----
-paul

This is a real issue and one I can't resolve. Those who raise pit bulls keep saying that they aren't any more likely than any other dog to attack. Yet time and time again the reported dog attacks, usually against children, are from pit bulls. Perhaps they aren't inherently more dangerous, but then again, maybe they can be more easily trained that way. You can't dismiss, based on your own personal bias and experience, that these attacks don't exist. They do. What's your explanation for them?

Like recently we had several pit bulls attack two women riding horses. They were not near any private property so it wasn't a territorial attack. The horses fought the dogs to the point where the dogs left, but they managed to injure the women and in the end, one horse died from its injuries. It takes little imagination to consider what if those women had not been on horses.
--

-----
-paul

Hi Paul,

First, there is no such breed of dog as a "Pit Bull."

Any dog involved in a biting incident which has some characteristic of some type of "bully breed" automatically gets branded as a "Pit Bull" in the press as if this were some mythical "breed". The "Pit Bull" is a creation of the media, not a breed.

There are Boxers, Mastiffs of several types, and various mixtures in the process of becoming pure bred and recognized by legitimate breeding associations such as the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club in here in the USA. These include the "American Bull Dog" and several other types. There is the American Staffordshire Terrier (formerly known as the Staffordshire Terrier here), there is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the English Bull terrier (colored and white variant) and several other breeds with large heads which when mixed by chance or on purpose in breeding (Rottweiler, for example) automatically become (Pit Bulls) by a misguided press.

Do I have extensive experience with the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier? Absolutely. Over three generations of my family have bred, trained and raised these breeds. Collectively that's over 200 years of experience. I was raised from a baby with American Pit Bull Terriers and outside of two combat tours in Vietnam, I've never been away from or without a number of these dogs. I'm getting close to 70 years old. I have personal experience with hundreds of American Pit Bull Terriers and I "know" their characteristics intimately.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is not a "dangerous" breed and is not a "breed" inclined to be aggressive in any way with humans. All canines bite and all canines can be dangerous in "packs" because they are, by nature, pack animals.

As an example, in the city of Denver, Colorado where so called "Pit Bulls" are banned, there are hundreds if not thousands of dog bites each year. The "only" ones which make the press are those by some dog having a "bully breed" characteristic and automatically branded by the media as the mythical "Pit Bull."

What we have here is rampant breed specific discrimination based on media hype. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember, but I remember very well other periods when German Shepherd and Doberman Pincher breeds went through the same discrimination by the press.

Any canine which is mishandled, abused, purposely made aggressive by a handler can be dangerous. A large, strong breed of "any" type can be deadly in such circumstances and that includes the American Pit Bull Terrier as well as dog breeds typically thought to be very docile such as Golder Retrievers, Labs, Collies, etc. I've seen and personally handled outright dangerous Golden Retrievers, but this is not a breed characteristic. This is either a genetically bad individual or an example of tragic environmental handling or an animal with a physical anomaly such as a brain tumor or other illness causing the aberrant behavior.

What I'm saying is that the American Pit Bull Terrier, by nature, is less likely to be human aggressive than "many" other canine breeds if not "most" other canine breeds. I'm old enough to remember when the American Pit Bull Terrier was highly revered in this country. It was one of the most commonly found breeds in rural America and in general it was "loved" by the community. I don't know if you are aware of the "Our Gang Comedy" (the Little Rascals) with their dog Peety. The dog was an American Pit Bull Terrier with a circle drawn around one eye. The "original" RCA Victrola dog was an American Pit Bull Terrier and was changed to a Jack Russel Terrier when it became "politically expedient" to do so because of the improper bad press.

In general, the media has created a mythical monster which doesn't exist in reality. It's created a non existent breed, the "Pit Bull" and continues to practice yellow journalism by perpetuation of misinformation and even outright lies. The Denver Post published some of these outright lies a few years ago when they put out an article signed by all editors. One laughable segment discussed a breed which "chewed through chain link fences" and "attacked innocent passersby without provocation." I had to point out to the editors that the last creature capable of "chewing through a chain link fence" was called a Tyrannosaurus rex and became extinct in the Cretacious Period some 68 million years ago.

It's this type of misinformation which perpetuates the outright lies about a breed. Any dog which attacks a human and has bulldog characteristics is automatically branded a "Pit Bull" and by mistaken identity or outright lie causes an innocent breed to be impugned. Try to find a "single" incident of a purebred, registered American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier example which has been involved in a human death and you will fail.

These are not dangerous animals and there is zero correlation between canine specific aggression and human specific aggression.

Best regards,

Lin

From the point you have strayed,
it is not exactly what was said.
And using the precise breed's name
is mere semantics, it is the same.

Of course it is not the dog to blame,
whether animal is wild or tame.
Owners alone instil hierarchy
and risk total canine anarchy.

As to particular dangers known,
'Pit Bulls' have most certainly shown
to possess the most powerful bite
and are often kept just to fight.

This accusation of mine is not unjust,
because absolute control is a must.
We see occasions when it isn't there
and the result is too awful to bear.

You would expect a powerful gun,
to be governed more than a lesser one.
So it should be with powerful beast,
to protect the innocent at very least.

--
2010 : My new year's resolution - to be a year of poetry!

Lin Evans said:

Hi Paul,

Click to expand...

Member said:

First, there is no such breed of dog as a "Pit Bull."

Click to expand...

Member said:

Any dog involved in a biting incident which has some characteristic of some type of "bully breed" automatically gets branded as a "Pit Bull" in the press as if this were some mythical "breed". The "Pit Bull" is a creation of the media, not a breed.

Click to expand...

Member said:

There are Boxers, Mastiffs of several types, and various mixtures in the process of becoming pure bred and recognized by legitimate breeding associations such as the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club in here in the USA. These include the "American Bull Dog" and several other types. There is the American Staffordshire Terrier (formerly known as the Staffordshire Terrier here), there is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the English Bull terrier (colored and white variant) and several other breeds with large heads which when mixed by chance or on purpose in breeding (Rottweiler, for example) automatically become (Pit Bulls) by a misguided press.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Do I have extensive experience with the American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier? Absolutely. Over three generations of my family have bred, trained and raised these breeds. Collectively that's over 200 years of experience. I was raised from a baby with American Pit Bull Terriers and outside of two combat tours in Vietnam, I've never been away from or without a number of these dogs. I'm getting close to 70 years old. I have personal experience with hundreds of American Pit Bull Terriers and I "know" their characteristics intimately.

Click to expand...

Member said:

The American Pit Bull Terrier is not a "dangerous" breed and is not a "breed" inclined to be aggressive in any way with humans. All canines bite and all canines can be dangerous in "packs" because they are, by nature, pack animals.

Click to expand...

Member said:

As an example, in the city of Denver, Colorado where so called "Pit Bulls" are banned, there are hundreds if not thousands of dog bites each year. The "only" ones which make the press are those by some dog having a "bully breed" characteristic and automatically branded by the media as the mythical "Pit Bull."

Click to expand...

Member said:

What we have here is rampant breed specific discrimination based on media hype. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember, but I remember very well other periods when German Shepherd and Doberman Pincher breeds went through the same discrimination by the press.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Any canine which is mishandled, abused, purposely made aggressive by a handler can be dangerous. A large, strong breed of "any" type can be deadly in such circumstances and that includes the American Pit Bull Terrier as well as dog breeds typically thought to be very docile such as Golder Retrievers, Labs, Collies, etc. I've seen and personally handled outright dangerous Golden Retrievers, but this is not a breed characteristic. This is either a genetically bad individual or an example of tragic environmental handling or an animal with a physical anomaly such as a brain tumor or other illness causing the aberrant behavior.

Click to expand...

Member said:

What I'm saying is that the American Pit Bull Terrier, by nature, is less likely to be human aggressive than "many" other canine breeds if not "most" other canine breeds. I'm old enough to remember when the American Pit Bull Terrier was highly revered in this country. It was one of the most commonly found breeds in rural America and in general it was "loved" by the community. I don't know if you are aware of the "Our Gang Comedy" (the Little Rascals) with their dog Peety. The dog was an American Pit Bull Terrier with a circle drawn around one eye. The "original" RCA Victrola dog was an American Pit Bull Terrier and was changed to a Jack Russel Terrier when it became "politically expedient" to do so because of the improper bad press.

Click to expand...

Member said:

In general, the media has created a mythical monster which doesn't exist in reality.

Click to expand...

Tell that to all the people who have been viciously mauled by them and the families of the people or animals that have been killed by them. Regardless of what they're called or why they attack or whether they're "purebred" or not, they are dangerous or potentially dangerous and unpredictable.

The people who own pit bulls that attack and/or kill always say their dogs(s) are tame, loving, gentle, and friendly and would never attack anyone or anything.

Think about this: Would you rather put one of your children or grandchildren in a cage with a pit bull you didn't know or with a wild wolf you didn't know?

I realize that other dog breeds can be dangerous too, but I'd rather take my chances with a wolf than any sort of pit bull.

You may find this interesting:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

Member said:

It's created a non existent breed, the "Pit Bull" and continues to practice yellow journalism by perpetuation of misinformation and even outright lies. The Denver Post published some of these outright lies a few years ago when they put out an article signed by all editors. One laughable segment discussed a breed which "chewed through chain link fences" and "attacked innocent passersby without provocation." I had to point out to the editors that the last creature capable of "chewing through a chain link fence" was called a Tyrannosaurus rex and became extinct in the Cretacious Period some 68 million years ago.

Click to expand...

Member said:

It's this type of misinformation which perpetuates the outright lies about a breed. Any dog which attacks a human and has bulldog characteristics is automatically branded a "Pit Bull" and by mistaken identity or outright lie causes an innocent breed to be impugned. Try to find a "single" incident of a purebred, registered American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier example which has been involved in a human death and you will fail.

Click to expand...

Member said:

These are not dangerous animals and there is zero correlation between canine specific aggression and human specific aggression.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Best regards,

Click to expand...

Member said:

Lin

Click to expand...

Rat Salad said:

Tell that to all the people who have been viciously mauled by them and the families of the people or animals that have been killed by them. Regardless of what they're called or why they attack or whether they're "purebred" or not, they are dangerous or potentially dangerous and unpredictable.

Click to expand...

You have just strayed from any rational description to a hypothetical construct "they" which has absolutely "nothing" to do with the American Pit Bull Terrier.

Rat Salad said:

The people who own pit bulls that attack and/or kill always say their dogs(s) are tame, loving, gentle, and friendly and would never attack anyone or anything.

Click to expand...

I have told you that there is no such breed as a "Pit Bull" and you use the term as if it were some real entity. You also say "always say their dog(s) are tame, loving gentle and friendly..." etc. Something you absolutely can not know. This type of misinformation is just what I was referring to. "You" are helping to perpetuate a lie by spreading rumor couched as "fact."

Rat Salad said:

Think about this: Would you rather put one of your children or grandchildren in a cage with a pit bull you didn't know or with a wild wolf you didn't know?

Click to expand...

My children and grandchildren have been raised with American Pit Bull Terriers and have their own. I wouldn't be inclined to put my children in a "cage" for any reason, with or without a "wild wolf." Since there is no such thing as a "Pit Bull," that would be impossible.

Rat Salad said:

I realize that other dog breeds can be dangerous too, but I'd rather take my chances with a wolf than any sort of pit bull.

Click to expand...

I think you know very little about either wolves or dogs....

Lin

aardvark7 said:

From the point you have strayed,
it is not exactly what was said.
And using the precise breed's name
is mere semantics, it is the same.

Click to expand...

Of course it "isn't" the same. It's not remotely "mere semantics." When a specific breed is singled out improperly and being branded "dangerous" by ignorance, yellow journalism and a media anxious to sell "stories," it's much more than semantics. Guilty by inference and similarity in physical appearance is neither correct, just, nor does it serve any useful purpose.

Member said:

Of course it is not the dog to blame,
whether animal is wild or tame.
Owners alone instil hierarchy
and risk total canine anarchy.

Click to expand...

Then you have little knowledge of genetics. It's not a case of "only" environmental influences. Some canines have bad genetics. This is true of "every" breed. There are bad dogs which are born bad and there are bad people who are born bad. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a dream world. Both environment "and" genetics play a role in behavior. Breeders bucket puppies which show aggressive tendencies towards humans. Unfortunately, it's not that simple with humans. We have to create mental institutions, maximum security prisons, etc., to put both genetically bad and environmentally bad humans in to protect society from them.

Member said:

As to particular dangers known,
'Pit Bulls' have most certainly shown
to possess the most powerful bite
and are often kept just to fight.

Click to expand...

That's another common and incorrect myth. The thing which separates an American Pit Bull Terrier from other breeds has little to do with "powerful bite." What make the breed difference is called "gameness." This means that they have been bred for characteristics which allow them to continue "fighting" in the face of danger or certain defeat. Call it gameness, courage, tenacity or whatever. It's also what allowed some of these dogs to be highly "decorated" by the military for wartime heroism.

Member said:

This accusation of mine is not unjust,
because absolute control is a must.
We see occasions when it isn't there
and the result is too awful to bear.

You would expect a powerful gun,
to be governed more than a lesser one.
So it should be with powerful beast,
to protect the innocent at very least.

Click to expand...

Yes, common sense should prevail. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Lin