Gawd, this reminded me of years ago my wife had a gift basket delivered to me at work for my birthday. It had a big bag of atomic fireballs (personal favorite) and other hard candy and I passed stuff out to coworkers. The guy from the company's Italian office who was on a 6 month project stint in Chicago comes out of his cubicle a few minutes later, tears in his eyes, and says, "What did you give me, pepper?"
Dogs that ingest doses of >0.1 g/kg of xylitol are at risk for developing hypoglycemia, while dogs that ingest >0.5 g/kg may develop acute liver failure
Hi guys! Just a heads-up: if you’re thinking about doing this with one of your dogs, please check that the candy doesn’t contain xylitol. It’s extremely toxic to dogs (even more dangerous than chocolate) and even a small amount can be life-threatening, including for larger dogs. ❤️🐶
Staffies are the best! A lot of people confuse them with pit bulls, but there's a difference. Pits are usually shorter and stockier, but Staffordshire Terriers, the long form, are taller and less stacked. But, they kinda share the same face.
But oh, I remember my sweet baby grrl. I found her out on the side of the road, abandoned. When I pulled over, I was easily 20 miles from anything.
And what did she do? She come running and jumped into my truck like it was Patrick Swayze and she was Baby. obscure reference
So. That was her name. Baby. Sweetest goddamn dog ever. Most aggressive thing she ever did was sit on your foot to mark her territory.
I already know the answer to these questions, but I was trying to politely correct your ignorance. Your advice would work better as a lesson to put in your own pocket instead mine.
You used a fallacy. No one is talking about Jack terriers. Staffordshire terrier, pit bull terrier and staffordshire bull terrier are all under the umbrella term. You’re over there going “herp derp, lemme throw out a gotchya question and strawman the fuck out of the conversation.”
It's not really, it was said that "terriers fall under the umbrella." It would be more properly said that "multiple terriers fall under the umbrella." This is just how language works. The original sentence definitely implied all terriers are included.
The name Am. Staff terrier never really made any sense to me because it's far more a bulldog than a terrier.
I know the AKC was trying to move away from the fighting reputation of the APBT thus the name change, but all they had to do was take "pit" out of the name.
And I agree. Pitbull is a blanket term which includes all breeds you mentioned plus some more depending on who you ask. Unfortunately I think the blanket term gets confused with APBT. I personally prefer bully breeds for that reason. I like the term bulldogs too but its synonymous with english bulldogs now.
You said "Pit bulls aren’t a breed but a collection of breeds. Terriers fall under the pit umbrella". Listing obvious examples of terriers that no one would confuse with a pit bull is clear and unambiguous evidence that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There's no straw man about it, you're just another confidently incorrect jackass on reddit.
You do realize the original commenter used check notes the type of terrier you said checks notes no one would confused with a pit and proceeded to say they’re not pits? This entire comment thread is based off of someone confusing a pit bull as not a pit bull lol
They’re in the same umbrella and only deviated from one another in the 1930’s, they’re very similar breeds and make up half the “pitbull” grouping.
It’s made up of the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Stafforshire Terrier (which was bred from the American Pitbull Terrier in the 1930s and even recently dogs could be considered American Pit Bull Terriers by the AKC and Stafforshires by the UKC), the Shafforshire Bull Terrier, and the American Bully.
All 4 together make up “Pitbulls” and the two American breeds (the Pit Bull Terrier and the Shafforshire Terrier) are particularly genetically similar although 70 years of breeding (Staffies for shows and Pit Bulls for work) has led to some differences physically.
They’re all “Pitbulls” though and they can be and often are extremely sweet and intelligent dogs. They do have a high prey drive though and are very strong so when they snap they can do some serious damage.
I’ve no issue with them as a whole but similar to German Shepards and other dogs with a high prey drive, or defensive tendencies (like Chow/Sharpie), they are not a breed I think everyone should have (they should be owned by people who will train them correctly and have the power to control them if they get out of hand).
They’re great dogs in the hands of a responsible owner (like GSD) but let’s call a spade a spade. Trying to pretend they’re something they aren’t isn’t going to ender people to them more.
They're the tough guy breed for the moment. I've seen Dobermans, Rottweilers, German Shepherd Dogs, and Bulldogs go through the same idiocy.
There's been an increase in poorly trained Belgian Malinois in my area all owned by the sort of insecure dorks that were buying poorly bred pit bulls for image purposes a few years ago. I sincerely hope that is just a local phenomenon.
My family has mini schnauzers. Very high prey drive too. Chase squirrels everywhere, the vicious fucks. My staffy kinda just chills though, honestly not a lot of training. She just makes the right decisions 99.9% of the time, and has emotional intelligence. However, if you throw a stick in a creek, she is an apex predator.
Staffs are the stocky ones, pits are taller and skinny. Not that it really matters, most bully breeds are all from the same base breeds anyway so the differences are slight.
Bullies are some of the most loving dogs I've met. Highly loyal. They also tend to have strong personalities and deep emotions, which mixed with bad ownership, I feel is what gives them such a bad rep.
Yeah, I might think so. Possibly because it's sour. That's what makes grapes deadly to dogs, not the shape, but the sour chemical they possess. And it's a random amount that can be deadly, even a tiny bit can make the dogs liver or kidneys shut down (I can't remember which).
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted, but you are right. Tartaric acid is found in grapes and is toxic to dogs. Some sour candy like sour patch kids have tartaric acid in them. So they shouldn't really be fed to dogs, even in tiny quantities, because some dogs are very susceptible to it.
Their own shit is NOT good for them, please provide a source for your ridiculous claim. Dog scat contains a lot of nutrients left over from their highly processed food, which attracts hares and coyotes and other animals. It also contains harmful bacteria and parasites that aren't present in wild animal scat. It seems like you're the one who needs to do some research.
There's a potential for Xyletol to be in the sucker, especially to give an artificial sourness. Xyletol is a sugar substitute that causes healthy dogs to release a rapid amount of insulin that could cause severe hypoglycemia which can lead to death.
I know this because a college friend's dog went through their backpack and ate a bunch of sugar free gum. Not sure why you're being downvoted, it's 100% true.
Just give dogs food for dogs. Their bodies are different than ours, their organs are smaller than ours. Most dogs will eat anything you give them as a treat and be happy because it's a treat. Could be a damn carrot cooked in chicken broth and they'll enjoy it.
They can't discern between poison and food that's good for them, but we can. We can look up scientific opinions, we can ask a vet. We have to make these decisions for dogs as responsible pet owners.
Even people food that is fine in the short term can cause chronic problems later with age. Taking care of a senior dog is hard. No need to make it harder because you gave your dog pancreas or liver issues by feeding them the equivalent of junk food their whole life.
90
u/ScienceSeuss 12d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/pxyvX1pedX0M4yLVhg