PDA

View Full Version : A new neighbor moved in with 3 pitbulls - WWTTD?


norcal
08-27-2007, 09:33 AM
Last night my daughter (4 yrs) and I were walking our (little) dog on our street (we live at the end of a cul de sac) when a neighbor mom called me over. She looked upset and said, "You know those college guys who are moving in across the street? They have 3 pitbulls and they don't seem to have much control over them. I don't know what to do". She has a 5 year old and a two year old as well as a cat who roams the hood.

Most of my neighbors are families with young kids, cats, dogs etc who are always outside playing. The last thing we need is poorly trained pitbulls running around.

I am surprised a landlord would rent to young guys with a bunch of pitbulls. Think about the liability. I'm guessing they told the landlord they had a couple dogs but weren't specific about it.

Should I contact the landlord
or
Give the new neighbors a chance (yeah right)

CN: Mike Vick moved in next door.

Fearsome Forehand
08-27-2007, 10:29 AM
Lucky you.

Absolutely get all the neighbors together and contact the landlord and b*thc a fit. I would also contact your local police and see what local ordinances apply such as leash laws, etc.

And I would talk the college kids just don't expect it to do any good. In one ear, out the other.

Anyone who would bring pit bulls into a residential neighborhood is a total jerk. Those dogs are psychos especially the males. They can go off at any moment like dobermans or german shepherds. In my opinion, vicious breeds like that should be used exclusively for police dogs and excluded as pets.

When I was a kid, our kitty corner backyard neighbor had two vicious male German Shepherds. One named Bouncer and one named Champ. Champ was particulary vicious and mauled our cocker spaniel once. Bouncer chewed on my arm pretty good when I was about four. I was pals with the owner's four year old son so Bouncer knew me but still felt like I was a potential snack. Finding dead cats around the neighborhood became the norm anytime those two brutes escaped their fenced in yard. And if you climbed up on the fence (a 6' fence?), those two would jump up and try to get you.

Looking back, I'm amazed none of the neighbors acted proactively and killed those dogs. If I was in a similar situation, those dogs would have poisoned before they killed someone's kid. It's a miracle nothing tragic ever happened given all the small children in that neighborhood. As I recall Champ eventually had to be destroyed because there were too many incidents. What was Mr. Hiller (the owner) thinking? Hard to understand.

Good luck,man. I wouldn't let your kids out much until the matter is resolved.

QuietDaze
08-27-2007, 10:36 AM
Last night my daughter (4 yrs) and I were walking our (little) dog on our street (we live at the end of a cul de sac) when a neighbor mom called me over. She looked upset and said, "You know those college guys who are moving in across the street? They have 3 pitbulls and they don't seem to have much control over them. I don't know what to do". She has a 5 year old and a two year old as well as a cat who roams the hood.

Most of my neighbors are families with young kids, cats, dogs etc who are always outside playing. The last thing we need is poorly trained pitbulls running around.

I am surprised a landlord would rent to young guys with a bunch of pitbulls. Think about the liability. I'm guessing they told the landlord they had a couple dogs but weren't specific about it.

Should I contact the landlord
or
Give the new neighbors a chance (yeah right)

CN: Mike Vick moved in next door.


There is way too much drama surrounding pits. Go meet the neighbors and decide for yourself before you jump to conclusions. BTW, anyone who allows their cat to roam free can't get upset when it gets killed by a dog.

Fee
08-27-2007, 10:49 AM
Contact the landlord immediately and let him know that you will hold him responsible for the behavior of those dogs. Ask him if his homeowners' policy will cover any damages those dogs create if they escape. That will probably scare him. Also, (without naming our fair city) call the business line of the police department and request a community services officer to come to the neighborhood to speak to all of the concerned parents. That officer might bring along an animal control officer to answer any questions you have about safety, animal behavior, etc, etc. Feel free to invite the college kids and the landlord along (but they probably won't come). These are the proactive steps that you can take to get the assorted 'resources' involved so that the dog owners understand that everyone is keeping an eye on them and their potentially dangerous dogs.

ollinger
08-27-2007, 11:32 AM
Better keep the door locked. Story on aol news about 5 days ago about a woman who woke up in her own bed to find 2 pit bulls mauling her. They escaped in the neighborhood and came into her house through one of those little pet doorways built into the door to her house.

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 11:42 AM
There is way too much drama surrounding pits. Go meet the neighbors and decide for yourself before you jump to conclusions. BTW, anyone who allows their cat to roam free can't get upset when it gets killed by a dog.No, there is absolutely the appropriate amount of "drama" surrounding pit bulls. They are bred to kill and maul and today's young morons gravitate towards them because it makes them feel like real bad,big men and real studs you'd better not mess with!
The punks that perpetuate the bad *** mentality by using pit bulls as a way to enhance their own insecure sense of masculinity should do some mandatory long term prison time for negliegently allowing their killing machines to attack others.
And btw for you... it is the cat's nature to roam about and any dogs known to attack and kill cats should be put down by a vet as a potential killers! A dog that will attack and kill a cat is capable of doing the same to a child.

QuietDaze
08-27-2007, 12:18 PM
No, there is absolutely the appropriate amount of "drama" surrounding pit bulls. They are bred to kill and maul and today's young morons gravitate towards them because it makes them feel like real bad,big men and real studs you'd better not mess with!
The punks that perpetuate the bad *** mentality by using pit bulls as a way to enhance their own insecure sense of masculinity should do some mandatory long term prison time for negliegently allowing their killing machines to attack others.
And btw for you... it is the cat's nature to roam about and any dogs known to attack and kill cats should be put down by a vet as a potential killers! A dog that will attack and kill a cat is capable of doing the same to a child.

Surely you're kidding me. You seriously correlate a dog killing a cat to killing a child? I beg you to look up the difference between animal aggression and people aggression. The two are entirely different. If you have a pet you should contain it - period, otherwise you can't get upset when something happens to it when you weren't protecting it as a responsible owner. It's also the nature of an intact male dog to roam so we should let them? It's also the nature of MOST dogs to chase small furry animals, be a squirrel, bird, or cat. Unfortunately my dog would kill a cat if he could catch one, but he loves children. A child could pretty much do whatever they wanted to him and he wouldn't budge. However, I would NEVER leave him alone with a child - ever. But if a neighbor's cat decided to roam in my yard and gets killed, the dog is at fault? That makes no sense. Are you as up in arms about the number of birds, chipmunks, squirrels and rabbits cats kill? Or are you just ok with them killing pesky mice and rats? What about the many homeless kittens those roaming cats bring into the world? Maybe if you took the time to actually research pits for yourself instead of listening to the media. Yes, some people RAISE them to be mean and unstable but for the most part they are very human friendly and typically animal aggressive. At the end of the day, before a posse forms to get the boys kicked out the responsible and adult thing to do is talk to them and actually ask them what kind of dogs they own and how they plan on containing them. Ask them if the dogs are aggressive. I am an animal lover, I love dogs, I have two Rotties and the conclusions people jump to when they see my dogs is ridiculous. So yes, I am sensitive to people with 'aggressive breeds' and the misconceptions and judgement people seem to lean toward. If it turns out those dogs are dangerous, then by all means they should be put down. If MY dog were dangerous I would give him the shot myself I have no problem with that. But calling landlords and police before you even SPEAK to the neighbors is a bit unreasonable and alarmist.

And also, as far as the little old lady attacked in her own bed by pitbulls? Get the rest of the story please, it's on CNN. The neighbor's little jack russell terrier was running the streets, the pits broke free chasing him, the dog runs into the womans house via an OPEN sliding glass door (she apparently allows HER dog to go in and out as he pleases without a fenced yard) and jumps on her bed trying to escape the pits. The woman got injured trying to save the jack russell, and when her gun didn't work she commenced to beating the dogs, at which point they turned on her. Don't misunderstand me, the dog's owners (both of them) are absolutely at fault but generally when you break up a dog fight, you get bitten. When you HIT a dog, they will probably defend themselves. So no, the sweet little lady didn't get attacked in her bed. Every last dog owner involved, including the bitten lady is irresponsible.

norcal
08-27-2007, 12:38 PM
But calling landlords and police before you even SPEAK to the neighbors is a bit unreasonable and alarmist.

And also, as far as the little old lady attacked in her own bed by pitbulls? Get the rest of the story please, it's on CNN. The neighbor's little jack russell terrier was running the streets, the pits broke free chasing him, the dog runs into the womans house via an OPEN sliding glass door (she apparently allows HER dog to go in and out as he pleases without a fenced yard) and jumps on her bed trying to escape the pits. The woman got injured trying to save the jack russell, and when her gun didn't work she commenced to beating the dogs, at which point they turned on her. Don't misunderstand me, the dog's owners (both of them) are absolutely at fault but generally when you break up a dog fight, you get bitten. When you HIT a dog, they will probably defend themselves. So no, the sweet little lady didn't get attacked in her bed. Every last dog owner involved, including the bitten lady is irresponsible.

I agree, roaming cats do so at their own risk. And of course I plan on talking to the neighbors and meeting the dogs, I introduce myself to all new neighbors. If they are violating their lease by having the dogs there I will have no problem reporting them even if the pits are 'nice'.

It is pretty obvious Pits and Rotts are inherently dangerous though. Here are the dog homicides over the last year...and many of these were 'family dogs'.

Pretty easy to do the math on this one:

July 2006

The month of July saw three human deaths, all by pit bulls. Two deaths were in one-bite states.

On July 27th, 71-year-old Ms. Jimmie May McConnell was in her yard in Kansas City, Kan., when a pit bull jumped over her fence and killed her.

Earlier in the month, 3-year-old Mariah Puga of Hargill, Texas, was killed by her parents pit bulls.

John Brannaman, 81, died of a heart attack at Orlando, Florida, on July 31st after he was mauled by two pit bulls in front of his home when he tried to retrieve garbage cans from the road.
August 2006

The month of August saw two canine homicides, both in Florida, one by a Presa Canario and the other by a boxer.

On August 18th, a Presa Canario ripped the jugular vein from the neck of its owner, Shawna Willey, 30, in Tamarac, Florida. She was giving the dog a bath and it bit her a half dozen times. This is the same breed of dog that killed Diane Whipple (see below).

On August 30th, a man was killed by a boxer that was confined in a dog pen, in Miami.
September 2006

In September, no persons were killed by dogs in the USA. The UK saw a terrible coincidence, however, in which a baby was killed by Rottweiler guard dogs and then, within hours, her grandfather was stabbed and left for dead (but survived).
October 2006

There were three canine homicides in October, one by a Rottweiler and two by pit bulls. Two deaths were in one-bite states.

On October 3, 2006, 2-year-old Julius Graham of Greene County, North Carolina, was killed by a Rottweiler.

On October 8, 2006, 44-year-old Jeannine Fusco was killed in Ramapo, NY, by a pit bull that she was taking care of for a friend.

On October 28, 2006, 40-year-old Tim McCurry of Montgomery County, TX, was killed by a pit bull that he was considering buying for home protection.

November 2006

November broke the monthly record for canine homicides. Three were in one-bite states.

On November 3, two-year-old Ariel Pogue of Tallapoosa County, Alabama, was mauled to death outside her home by one of her parents' three Rottweilers, in the presence of her mother.

On November 4, one-year-old Allen L. Young died after he was mauled at home by his dad's four pit bulls, which took the boy from his bed at night.

On November 6, two-year-old Luis Fernando Romero Jr. was killed after being mauled by two Rottweilers at his home near Tucson, Arizona.

On November 8, a pit bull was found eating the body of Richard Adams, in Phenix City, Alabama, after it killed him.

On November 13, two Rottweilers killed 40-year-old James. L. Eisaman of Summit County, Ohio.

On November 21, two dogs killed 4-year-old Pedro Rios in east Harris County, Texas, as he was playing outside his house.

December 2006

There were no canine homicides in the USA in December 2006.

January 2007:

There were 4 canine homicides in the USA in January 2007. All were in one-bite states.

In San Antonio, TX, 10-year-old Amber Jones was fatally attacked by a neighbor's pit bull on January 12, 2007. She previously had played with the dog.

In St. Louis, MO (Missouri), on January 15, 2007, Linda Mittino, 69, was killed by her son's dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd. The same dog had attacked her the previous November, requiring her to submit to three hours of plastic surgery. She resisted having the dog punished for the earlier attack upon her. This time, it killed her.

In Richmond, VA, 6-year-old Matthew Logan Johnson was mauled to death on January 24, 2007, by two of seven Rottweilers owned by his parents. The dogs that killed the boy were newly adopted only days before.

In Brewton, Alabama, on January 29, 2007, 18-month-old Taylor Kitlica was killed on her front lawn by a Rottweiler that her parents had found and chained there, hoping that its owner would retrieve it.

February 2007:

There was one canine homicide in the USA in February 2007. It happened in Georgia, a state that has repudiated the one-bite rule under only the most narrow circumstances. In Atlanta, Georgia, 2-year-old Robynn Bradley was mauled to death on February 16, 2007 by a pit bull mix and mastiff mix that had escaped from their pen.

March 2007:

Two people were killed by dogs in the USA in March 2007, and both were in Texas, a one-bite state. On March 16, a 50-year-old woman from Friendswood, Texas, was found dead in her backyard, the victim of her own dog or dogs, of which there were three.

On March 23, a two-year-old Dallas-area girl was fatally mauled by her parents' dog at their mobile home.
April 2007

There was one canine homicide in the USA in April 2007. In Charleston, South Carolina, 2-year-old Brian Palmer was mauled to death by the family pit bull. The boy had been left alone in the house with the dog and the boy's brothers, the oldest of whom was 16.

May 2007

In May 2007, four Americans died as a result of being attacked by dogs. All deaths were in one-bite states.

On May 13th, Celestino Rangel, a 90-year-old man in San Antonio, Texas, was killed by two pit bulls that had broken into his home and attacked him.

On May 17th, in Memphis, Tennessee, 59-year-old James Chapple, Jr., whose brutal injuries and hospital-bed testimony helped to repeal the "one bite rule" in that state, died from complications of those injuries, which were incurred earlier in the year and were also inflicted by pit bulls. (Tennessee will change from a one-bite state to a statutory strict liability state if the governor signs into law a bill that the legislature passed in May.)

On May 25th, in El Paso, Texas, 96-year-old Magdalena Silva was mauled to death by a Doberman Pinscher and a German Shepard as she was feeding the dogs.

On May 26th, a 3-year-old boy was mauled by dogs at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, and died on May 29th.

June 2007

In June 2007, two Americans died as a result of being attacked by a dog. On June 17, 2007, a 1-year-old Chow killed its owner, Phyllis G. Carroll, 63, in Connersville, Indiana.

On June 29, 2007, Mary Diana Bernal, 62, of Dallas, Texas, was killed by a pit bull owned by her brother in law, Eliasar Macias. "My dog never had any problems. He was a real friendly dog until now," Macias said. This killing happened in Daytona Beach, Florida, and the dog was in very poor health.

July 2007

In July 2007, three Americans died as a result of being attacked by a dog. A Rottweiler, chained in its owner's unfenced front yard, killed 5-year-old Tiffany Pauley of Carroll County, GA (45 miles from Atlanta). This accident illustrates the danger of chaining, which substantially increases a dog's aggression toward humans. For more about chaining, see Why Dogs Bite People.

On July 23, 2007, 11-month-old Trey Paeth of Florence, Ala., was killed in Putnam County, Tenn., by two Siberian huskies. The boy was in a screened playpen, and the dogs bit and clawed their way through it to maul him to death. His parents were in another room and did not hear anything. The dogs later were destroyed.

On July 29, 2007, a 6-month-old pit bull in Bath, New York, killed 6-year-old Sabin Jones-Abbott of Steuben County, New York. The boy had been feeding the dog minutes before the attack.

Jonnyf
08-27-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm not sure if it's inyour list (didn't read the whole list) but a few years ago their was a couple of children killed throughout the UK by pitbulls

Brettolius
08-27-2007, 12:51 PM
http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html

LafayetteHitter
08-27-2007, 12:54 PM
If it's ok for roaming dogs to kill a roaming cat because it's in their nature, the dog owners should beware of roaming humans like myself walking around with a baseball bat or possibly some other weapon who finds it in their nature to kill a roaming dog that might kill a roaming cat! lol

QuietDaze
08-27-2007, 01:07 PM
I agree, roaming cats do so at their own risk. And of course I plan on talking to the neighbors and meeting the dogs, I introduce myself to all new neighbors. If they are violating their lease by having the dogs there I will have no problem reporting them even if the pits are 'nice'.

It is pretty obvious Pits and Rotts are inherently dangerous though. Here are the dog homicides over the last year...and many of these were 'family dogs'.

Pretty easy to do the math on this one:

I'm glad you plan on talking to your neighbors first. I think all dogs are dangerous if they are bigger than a football. But that's just me. I do agree that the larger the dog, generally they will do more damage. I'm not a huge statics person because they can be swung in any direction. As far as 'inherently' dangerous, I don't think so. Some dogs are born with mental issues and are crazy. But the majority of dogs don't bite, so for me, the minority of killers and biters don't make a whole breed inherently dangerous. I think people are at fault. For instance, if I knew my dog was dangerous, it's my responsibility to put him down or if I had the means and knowledge, contain him in a way where I was 100% certain he would not escape. A lot of people don't do that. And I don't care if it's a chihuahua or a mastiff. Folks think it's cute when little football dogs snarl and act aggressive, not so cute when its a 120lb rottie so the bigger dog the one people call the puppy police on even if it hasn't even done anything. But ok, I'm off my soap box ;) I'm glad you are going to talk to the boys before calling the law on them. All bets are off if the dogs either 1-don't belong there or 2-are vicious.

QuietDaze
08-27-2007, 01:12 PM
If it's ok for roaming dogs to kill a roaming cat because it's in their nature, the dog owners should beware of roaming humans like myself walking around with a baseball bat or possibly some other weapon who finds it in their nature to kill a roaming dog that might kill a roaming cat! lol

LOL - I would be the first one to tell you to bash my sweet dog's head in if he threatened you because he was running around the streets. 'Pets' do not belong in the streets - out there it's survival of the fittest. :-)

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 01:29 PM
Surely you're kidding me. You seriously correlate a dog killing a cat to killing a child? I beg you to look up the difference between animal aggression and people aggression. The two are entirely different.I've had lots of dogs that would chase a cat. But none that would kill one. A dog that would kill a cat is overly aggressive and dangerous. Most dogs aren't killers but you seem to think it's a natural byproduct of domesticated canine behavior. It says a lot about your starting point in all this.

If you have a pet you should contain it - period, otherwise you can't get upset when something happens to it when you weren't protecting it as a responsible owner. It's also the nature of an intact male dog to roam so we should let them? It's also the nature of MOST dogs to chase small furry animals, be a squirrel, bird, or cat. Unfortunately my dog would kill a cat if he could catch one, but he loves children. A child could pretty much do whatever they wanted to him and he wouldn't budge. However, I would NEVER leave him alone with a child - ever. But if a neighbor's cat decided to roam in my yard and gets killed, the dog is at fault? That makes no sense. Are you as up in arms about the number of birds, chipmunks, squirrels and rabbits cats kill? Or are you just ok with them killing pesky mice and rats?Apples and oranges. A cat may kill a mouse but I've yet to read of a cat mauling a child to death, unlike a pit bull.

What about the many homeless kittens those roaming cats bring into the world? Maybe if you took the time to actually research pits for yourself instead of listening to the media. Yes, some people RAISE them to be mean and unstable but for the most part they are very human friendly and typically animal aggressive. At the end of the day, before a posse forms to get the boys kicked out the responsible and adult thing to do is talk to them and actually ask them what kind of dogs they own and how they plan on containing them. Ask them if the dogs are aggressive. I am an animal lover, I love dogs, I have two Rotties and the conclusions people jump to when they see my dogs is ridiculous. So yes, I am sensitive to people with 'aggressive breeds' and the misconceptions and judgement people seem to lean toward. If it turns out those dogs are dangerous, then by all means they should be put down. If MY dog were dangerous I would give him the shot myself I have no problem with that. But calling landlords and police before you even SPEAK to the neighbors is a bit unreasonable and alarmist.I'm not in favor of letting unfixed cats roam but it is in a cat's nature to roam about. And unless you are a mouse or bird there is no danger from a roaming cat.
You can't say the same for a roaming pit bull.
Unfortunately for you the link between pit bulls and the thug wannabes that own them is solid. You can't seperate the two as much as you'd like to.

A little punk with self esteem problems and a dacshund is no problem. A little punk with self esteem problems and a pit bull,or two, is a disaster waiting to happen. Guess what types of people like to own pit bulls?
Invariably it's someone that needs a dangerous killer breed to prove what a big man he is. If you need a dog for companionship then get a golden retriever. If you need one to intimidate people then you get a pit bull(or some other large aggressive breed).
Those are the facts. Period!

I know a thing or two about dog breeds and the agression that is innate to the pit bull is undeniable and putting a pit bull around any other breed is asking for problems. The number of "friendly well adjusted" pit bulls that have turned on family members is staggering.
I understand that a pit bull isn't inherently evil(whatever that means in dog terms) but when you combine the potential for violence bred into the dog and the sort of idiot yahoo that wants a killer breed you have a recipie for disaster.

GRANITECHIEF
08-27-2007, 01:45 PM
My wife used to have a chow mix, before i met her. It bit her 2yo daughter in the neck as she stepped over it and almost killed her, just missed the jugular. Nice family doggy.

Now we have 115 lb newfoundland that keeps a close eye on the children, in a protective way. Also acts as a lifeguard at the beach. He does chase the cat when he sees him in the downstairs part of the house, but its because he wants to play.

Moose Malloy
08-27-2007, 01:45 PM
Guess what types of people like to own pit bulls?


Notable Pit Bulls owners include:

Jessica Alba[93]
Michael J. Fox[94]
Alicia Silverstone[95]
Jessica Biel owns three pit bulls[96][97]
Adam Brody and Rachel Bilson have a pit bull named Penny Lane.[98]
TV cook Rachael Ray has two pit bulls.[102]
Comedian Jon Stewart has 2 pit bulls, named Monkey and Shamsky.[103][104]

Fearsome Forehand
08-27-2007, 01:49 PM
Agree that is irresponsible to allow dogs and cats to roam free if you don't live on a farm.

Pits Bulls and their ilk are bred to be super aggressive and vicious. They are attack dogs and/or guard dogs. They can be "nice" one minute and then the next minute something sets them off and they are trying to rip out you throat. That tendency is not true of all breeds. When was the last time you heard of someone being mauled by a cocker spaniel or a golden retriever? It is almost unheard of for those breeds to attack someone. 99.99% of the problems are with certain breeds. It is inappropriate for vicious breeds to live in residential areas.

Dauchsunds are sort of nasty also. I think they are just piised off because they are so short. They are the napoleons of psycho dogs. But, at least they can't rip your throat out unless you are laying down on the ground.

I don't think the OP and his neighbors would be out of line by demanding the landlord take immediate action regarding the pit bulls or risk a lawsuit. He and his family shouldn't have to live next to that sort of a potential threat.

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 01:50 PM
What? Did you forget Michael Vick, the greatest pit bull owner of them all?
Thanks for the list. The exceptions prove the rule. Pit bulls are, in 98% of the cases, nothing but thug accessories.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_scared_of_pit.html

Fee
08-27-2007, 02:22 PM
I have friends who own two 'pit bulls' but they are not the typical American Pit Bull (the in-bred, aggressive kind). They are well-bred, from registered lines of something or other Bulldog (sorry I can't remember the real name). These are very docile, friendly, even affectionate dogs and I really like them. BUT, I don't ever want to be alone with them, even if they are fixed females. I know that somewhere deep inside them there is still an instinct to kill if necessary. Thankfully, this couple does not have kids and they don't ever plan to have kids, so I think those two dogs could die of old age without ever biting anyone.

However, what I have seen in America is this mutant breed of dog that was taken away from its protective, working dog instinct and turned into something else entirely. That is the dog that I dislike and the one that I am very wary of. Norcal and his neighbors are wise to feel the same, in my opinion.

WildVolley
08-27-2007, 03:15 PM
Pit bulls are the psychopaths of the dog world, mostly because they've been bred to be. Strangely enough, some of the best fighting pit bulls are almost completely harmless to adults who aren't afraid of them. This is because a lot of the fighting breeds are such that they actually separate the dogs by hand. The one's that didn't take a bite out of the owner when they pried their jaws apart with a stick were allowed to live and breed.

I've met random pit bulls that I could have picked up and run off with, and I'm was a total stranger. Yet, I wouldn't want those dogs around small children. I've seen attacking dogs run around someone who isn't afraid of them to go after someone who is. They're pretty good at sensing fear.

angharad
08-27-2007, 03:31 PM
I'll agree that some dogs are more prone to violence than others, but it truly depends on the dog and its treatment. Two examples: A friend of mine (a piano teacher) adopted a formerly abused rottweiler from a shelter. She had kids walking in and out of her house for lessons, and this dog never so much as growled at any of them. It was an angel. On the other hand, a neighbour purchased a dalmatian mix puppy that savaged a 3-year-old girl. If you're going to make a fuss - which I do think you should do - make sure that the same rules apply to all dogs in the neighbourhood. If you won't tolerate a pit bull being off their leash, you shouldn't tolerate any dog being off its leash.

And unless you are a mouse or bird there is no danger from a roaming cat.
When I was younger, I was attacked by a roaming cat for making the grievous error of retrieving a tennis ball from under the tree it was sitting in. A few months of antibiotics and keeping your arm in a sling seems to be a bit shy of "no danger".

Bodacious DVT
08-27-2007, 04:16 PM
my dad was recently bitten by a neighbor's dog.

she defended the dog saying that "it was a friendly nip" and "she only does that when you do something to threaten her". yea right. my dad was rushed to the ER with a gouge out of his calf. so much for a "friendly nip."

i would find out if they need to be kept on a leash and dont be afraid to call in a violation. unfortunately, you often cant do anything (legal) until its too late.

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 05:28 PM
When I was younger, I was attacked by a roaming cat for making the grievous error of retrieving a tennis ball from under the tree it was sitting in. A few months of antibiotics and keeping your arm in a sling seems to be a bit shy of "no danger".


Yes, those notorious cat maulings that happen frequently to unsuspecting people can be quite a problem.

CanadianChic
08-27-2007, 05:31 PM
CN: Mike Vick moved in next door.

Uh huh, nice try sweetums. I almost fell for yet another of your hypothetical "issues". I'm still weary of you since the "my buddy's wife" drama. ;)

tennispro11
08-27-2007, 05:35 PM
There is way too much drama surrounding pits. Go meet the neighbors and decide for yourself before you jump to conclusions. BTW, anyone who allows their cat to roam free can't get upset when it gets killed by a dog.

That is not really a factual statement. Pit bulls are by far the most known dogs to attack kids for no known reason. This is proven over and over again by the amount of press they get every time this happens. I have had several experiences with pit bulls that were raised in a loving home and environment. They will go after you for anything. I would not trust any pit bull period.

angharad
08-27-2007, 05:41 PM
Yes, those notorious cat maulings that happen frequently to unsuspecting people can be quite a problem.


Congratulations! You completely missed my point. Let me try to spell it out: Cats can be dangerous. Are they as dangerous as dogs? No. I never claimed them to be. But to say that they pose no threat at all is absolutely ridiculous.

CanadianChic
08-27-2007, 05:43 PM
Congratulations! You completely missed my point. Let me try to spell it out: Cats can be dangerous. Are they as dangerous as dogs? No. I never claimed them to be. But to say that they pose no threat at all is absolutely ridiculous.

The likelihood is very rare.

crazysoccer00
08-27-2007, 07:03 PM
Come on yall!

There's always exceptions!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m2OC5Z1Fii8

Fearsome Forehand
08-27-2007, 08:42 PM
They stop filming when he ate them all. ;O)

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 08:46 PM
Congratulations! You completely missed my point. Let me try to spell it out: Cats can be dangerous. Are they as dangerous as dogs? No. I never claimed them to be. But to say that they pose no threat at all is absolutely ridiculous.And congratulations! You completely missed my point in return.
Yours is the first case I've ever heard of an unprovoked(really?) cat attack.Or any cat attack at all, for that matter.
Could a cat attack a person? Sure. So could a squirrel or a sparrow or even a garden snake.
But as I claimed, unless one is a bird or mouse the chances of being attacked by a cat are about as good as winning the state lottery or being hit by falling space debris. You haven't changed my mind one bit.

CanadianChic
08-27-2007, 08:52 PM
And congratulations! You completely missed my point in return.
Yours is the first case I've ever heard of an unprovoked(really?) cat attack.Or any cat attack at all, for that matter.
Could a cat attack a person? Sure. So could a squirrel or a sparrow or even a garden snake.
But as I claimed, unless one is a bird or mouse the chances of being attacked by a cat are about as good as winning the state lottery or being hit by falling space debris. You haven't changed my mind one bit.

Oh, that's too funny. Reminds me...a friend told me her cat caught a bird and brought it to the back door. She was watching out the window and said the bird must have been suicidal as it basically flew right into her cat's mouth. (You would have to see the fat lazy cat to fully get the humour).

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 09:01 PM
Yes indeed. If a cat really did attack this guy unprevoked it would be the first such case in recorded history that I'm aware of.
Domesticated cat brains aren't wired that way and the term 'fraidy cat wasn't coined for nothing.
I had an ugly scraggly tomcat scratch my finger once for stroking it's tail. The tail had been injured previously,unbeknownst to me. That is as close as I have ever come to a "cat attack".
To claim cats can be dangerous in any real life way is absurd.

Fearsome Forehand
08-27-2007, 09:11 PM
Maybe he was attacked by the rare and little understood "pit cat."

Deuce
08-27-2007, 09:18 PM
Anyone who would bring pit bulls into a residential neighborhood is a total jerk. Those dogs are psychos especially the males. They can go off at any moment like dobermans or german shepherds. In my opinion, vicious breeds like that should be used exclusively for police dogs and excluded as pets.
^ You are yet another who simply - and blindly - swallows everything you are fed by the media, rather than seeking the truth.
Read on to be educated...

Maybe if you took the time to actually research pits for yourself instead of listening to the media. Yes, some people RAISE them to be mean and unstable but for the most part they are very human friendly and typically animal aggressive. ^ I agree. This has been my experience.

am an animal lover, I love dogs, I have two Rotties and the conclusions people jump to when they see my dogs is ridiculous. So yes, I am sensitive to people with 'aggressive breeds' and the misconceptions and judgement people seem to lean toward. ^ Indeed - too many people speak before they think.


It is pretty obvious Pits and Rotts are inherently dangerous though. Here are the dog homicides over the last year...and many of these were 'family dogs'.
Pretty easy to do the math on this one: ^ I don't buy that for a second.
There are no "inherently dangerous" types of dog.

No, there is absolutely the appropriate amount of "drama" surrounding pit bulls. They are bred to kill and maul and today's young morons gravitate towards them because it makes them feel like real bad,big men and real studs you'd better not mess with!^ The latter portion of your paragraph is correct - young morons indeed gravitate toward pit bulls.
The first portion of your paragraph is very wrong - pit bulls are not inherently "bred to kill and maul". If they behave thusly, it is the result of the training and influence of the young morons you speak of.
Just like the young morons themselves, pit bulls are not born bad. Outside influences make them bad. If there are no negative outside influences, the person does not become a "young moron", and the pit bull does not become a dangerous threat.
Cause and effect.

The punks that perpetuate the bad *** mentality by using pit bulls as a way to enhance their own insecure sense of masculinity should do some mandatory long term prison time for negliegently allowing their killing machines to attack others.^ I agree - except for you reference to "killing machines". I would describe them as manufactured killing machines, for the reason I cited above.
A dog that will attack and kill a cat is capable of doing the same to a child.^ This is obviously untrue.
Technically, all dogs are "capable" of killing a child. But then, all adult humans are "capable" of the very same thing.

Unfortunately for you the link between pit bulls and the thug wannabes that own them is solid. You can't seperate the two as much as you'd like to.

A little punk with self esteem problems and a dacshund is no problem. A little punk with self esteem problems and a pit bull,or two, is a disaster waiting to happen. Guess what types of people like to own pit bulls?
Invariably it's someone that needs a dangerous killer breed to prove what a big man he is. If you need a dog for companionship then get a golden retriever. If you need one to intimidate people then you get a pit bull(or some other large aggressive breed).
Those are the facts. Period!^ I agree... but this is so simply because of the reputation that pit bulls have.
Why do they have this reputation? Well, certainly NOT because they are "born killers", or anything close to that.
Somewhere along the way, some of the "young morons" with self esteem problems decided to adopt the pit bull as their security blanket. Why the pit bull? Likely due to its intimidating physical appearance. "Young morons" rely very much on physical appearance. And a pit bull simply looks more intimidating that just about any other type of dog. They look muscular - like body builders. This aids with both the intimidation factor, as well as with identifying oneself through a separate object. The 'cool, tough' car or motorcycle, the 'cool, tough' tattoos, the 'cool, tough' clothes... and the 'cool, tough' dog. It all goes together. No other breed of dog would have fit the bill. So, the pit bull it was.
And what better way to be "cool and tough" and intimidating than to train your tough looking dog to behave aggressively?
As time has gone on, this unfortunate use made of the pitt bull has snowballed.
But don't blame the pit bull.

All that said... college guys with three pit bulls doesn't sound like a good recipe to me, as "college guys" run dangerously close to the "young morons" previously referred to.

Fearsome Forehand
08-27-2007, 09:28 PM
When Cats Attack:

My only experience with a cat attack: I was at a friend's apartment when I was in college. She had a cat which I was pretending to like because I wanted to nail her. (In reality, I dislike cats and am somewhat allergic to them.) The cat was on my lap at the very moment one of my roommates entered the room with his black labrador "Bo" in tow.

After an instant which seemed to last forever, the dog saw the cat and made a move towards it. The cat (more importantly the cat that had not yet been declawed) decided it was no longer safe sitting on my lap anymore and entered into what I can only describe as a frenzied climb up my upper body. I was in Florida so I think I was wearing a tank top. An unfortunate wardrobe choice given the circumstances. Needless to say, I was scratched up pretty good. I believe I had repressed this memory until now.

Cats do like to play "the ambush game" so maybe that is what happened to the cat attack victim.

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 09:39 PM
I too feel you are teetering on the brink of understanding but then you pull back at the last moment.
What you fail to take into account is that pit bulls had certain characteristics "bred" into them that makes them unique from all other breeds. They are fearless,aggressive and can be very very violent if something in them snaps a certain way. Everything about this "designer" breed makes it an ideal killing machine.
You can't say that about a golden retriever, an Australian Cattle dog, a dachshund,etc. because those dogs weren't created with the idea of attacking and mauling something in mind. It's as simple as that and yes, a well treated pit bull may be quite loving...until something happens to push that dog's buttons. Then it is indeed a killing machine. I've had a dozen dogs and never had the fear that one day one of them would be capable of turning on me.
A golden retriever doesn't instill that sense of fear in one. A pit bull does.

To address your other point,yeah, all dogs are capable of killing a child( I guess a determined chihuahua could,if given enough time). But a dog that would attack and kill a cat, in a pack or solo, purely for the sport of the kill is
clearly a potentially lethal beast should it snap.
It has not been sufficiently domesticated.

Deuce
08-27-2007, 09:48 PM
I too feel you are teetering on the brink of understanding but then you pull back at the last moment.
What you fail to take into account is that pit bulls had certain characteristics "bred" into them that makes them unique from all other breeds. They are fearless,aggressive and can be very very violent if something in them snaps a certain way. Everything about this "designer" breed makes it an ideal killing machine.
You can't say that about a golden retriever, an Australian Cattle dog, a dachshund,etc. because those dogs weren't created with the idea of attacking and mauling something in mind. It's as simple as that^ No, it's not nearly "as simple as that" because of the variable of human influence, which you yourself made reference to several times with the "young morons", etc.

...and yes, a well treated pit bull may be quite loving...until something happens to push that dog's buttons. Then it is indeed a killing machine. I've had a dozen dogs and never had the fear that one day it would be capable of turning on me.
A golden retriever doesn't instill that sense of fear in one. A pit bull does.^ Pit bulls are simply physically stronger than most, if not all, other breeds. So, when they 'snap', they can potentially do more damage. This, combined with the fact that "young morons" gravitate to them, and the media's sensationalism, explains their unfortunate reputation.
Every breed of dog, given equal 'upbringing' and human influence, is just as capable of 'snapping' as is the pit bull - no more, and no less. It's just that the pit bull, due to its superior physical strength, can cause more damage when it 'snaps' than can other, less physically strong breeds.

CanadianChic
08-27-2007, 09:54 PM
They can go off at any moment like dobermans or german shepherds. In my opinion, vicious breeds like that should be used exclusively for police dogs and excluded as pets.


Since when are German Shepherds considered to be a dangerous animal? You are aware they are trained to "be" vicious by their handlers - the reason they are chosen for police duty is their ability to follow commands and their loyalty (combined with superiour intelligence, stamina and muscular build) - not for some "mean" or "violent" personality trait.

When Cats Attack:

My only experience with a cat attack: I was at a friend's apartment when I was in college. She had a cat which I was pretending to like because I wanted to nail her.......

Yeah...you had my attention but just had to go and lose it by pulling the "crass" card.

alwaysatnet
08-27-2007, 10:01 PM
^ No, it's not nearly "as simple as that" because of the variable of human influence, which you yourself made reference to several times with the "young morons", etc. Yeah, it's taken for granted a well treated pit bull will behave better than a pit bull raised by say,Michael Vick. But the very characteristics that were bred into the breed in the first place,part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull, is the temperment.
A temperment to maul, attack, fight etc. There's no way of getting around that.
Bringing a pit bull around another breed of dog is a big risk and so is leaving a pit bull alone with a child. The fact is the accounts of "good" pit bulls that one day snapped and mauled a family member are very very numerous.
They weren't just bred for their physical qualities. They were also bred for their personalities(aggression,fearlessness,etc.)

^ Pit bulls are simply physically stronger than most, if not all, other breeds. So, when they 'snap', they can potentially do more damage. This, combined with the fact that "young morons" gravitate to them, and the media's sensationalism, explains their unfortunate reputation.
Avery breed of dog, given equal 'upbringing' and human influence, is just as capable of 'snapping' as is the pit bull - no more, and no less. It's just that the pit bull, due to its superior physical strength, can cause more damage when it 'snaps' than can other, less physically strong breeds.You're only half right. Because of the fighter's psyche that was bred into the breed a pit bull is infinitely more liable to snap than a chihuahua,let's say.
Other dog's simply don't have the fearless aggressiveness in them that a pit bull does and that makes all the difference.

CanadianChic
08-27-2007, 10:06 PM
You're only half right. Because of the fighter's psyche that was bred into the breed a pit bull is infinitely more liable to snap than a chihuahua,let's say.
Other dog's simply don't have the fearless aggressiveness in them that a pit bull does and that makes all the difference.

Interesting that you mention that breed Always (for me anyway). There are only two times that I have been "attacked" for lack of a better word by the canine variety. My hands were nipped at by a pit bull once and I was outright bitten by a chihuahua once on the hand. I would take my chances against a rotty over a chihuahua any day. Carry on.....:p

Kobble
08-27-2007, 10:18 PM
Seems like the hornets nest of trolls was hit; continuing to pump out myth after myth.

As for norcal, you live in a **** neighborhood, now. Take this as a sign of the future. Move out.

Deuce
08-27-2007, 10:19 PM
Yeah, it's taken for granted a well treated pit bull will behave better than a pit bull raised by say,Michael Vick. But the very characteristics that were bred into the breed in the first place,part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull, is the temperment.
A temperment to maul, attack, fight etc. There's no way of getting around that.
Bringing a pit bull around another breed of dog is a big risk and so is leaving a pit bull alone with a child. The fact is the accounts of "good" pit bulls that one day snapped and mauled a family member are very very numerous.
They weren't just bred for their physical qualities. They were also bred for their personalities(aggression,fearlessness,etc.)

You're only half right. Because of the fighter's psyche that was bred into the breed a pit bull is infinitely more liable to snap than a chihuahua,let's say.
Other dog's simply don't have the fearless aggressiveness in them that a pit bull does and that makes all the difference.I don't believe this nonsense for a second.

If you p!ss off a dalmation (or any other breed of dog), he is just as likely to snap at you as is a pit bull - no more, no less.
Pit bulls are not inherently aggressive. If they were, 100% of them would attack at some point in their lives.

CanadianChic
08-27-2007, 10:22 PM
Seems like the hornets nest of trolls was hit; continuing to pump out myth after myth.


Even though I am sure you were lumping me in that descriptor, that line is too funny!! Thanks for the laugh!!

35ft6
08-27-2007, 11:26 PM
No, there is absolutely the appropriate amount of "drama" surrounding pit bulls.From what I've experienced, this is absolutely correct. My ex-gf's ******** brother had a pitbull. It seemed like the gentlest dog in the world, but one day my GF woke him up so she could open her closet, he was asleep in front of it, and it mauled her. He almost bit off her fingers as she fought him off. Luckily for my ex, she is feisty, she fought off the dog enough to crawl out of her apartment and demanded a second opinion when the first doctor said they couldn't reattach her fingers, which were hanging by skin. Her demands were met in the form of a microsurgeon in Manhattan who volunteered to operate immediately. This dog would have killed or horribly maimed 2 little kids.Surely you're kidding me. You seriously correlate a dog killing a cat to killing a child? In your opinion, what cognitive distinction would the pitbull make?If you have a pet you should contain it - period, otherwise you can't get upset when something happens to it when you weren't protecting it as a responsible owner. By that logic, are people allowed to kill pitbulls that stray from their yard on sight?Unfortunately my dog would kill a cat if he could catch one, but he loves children. A child could pretty much do whatever they wanted to him and he wouldn't budge.Do you own a pitbull? If not, you do realize that the crux of this discussion is pitbull, not dogs in general. Not all dogs are bred the same or have the same jaw strength.Maybe if you took the time to actually research pits for yourself instead of listening to the media. Yes, some people RAISE them to be mean and unstable but for the most part they are very human friendly and typically animal aggressive. How many articles have you read about golden retrievers killing somebody? But calling landlords and police before you even SPEAK to the neighbors is a bit unreasonable and alarmist. Waiting until the dogs "prove themselves dangerous" is stupid. Real politik in this instance. Look after your kids. Get them pitbulls out of there IMO.

And also, as far as the little old lady attacked in her own bed by pitbulls? Get the rest of the story please, it's on CNN. The neighbor's little jack russell terrier was running the streets, the pits broke free chasing him, the dog runs into the womans house via an OPEN sliding glass door (she apparently allows HER dog to go in and out as he pleases without a fenced yard) and jumps on her bed trying to escape the pits. The woman got injured trying to save the jack russell, and when her gun didn't work she commenced to beating the dogs, at which point they turned on her. Don't misunderstand me, the dog's owners (both of them) are absolutely at fault but generally when you break up a dog fight, you get bitten. When you HIT a dog, they will probably defend themselves. So no, the sweet little lady didn't get attacked in her bed. Every last dog owner involved, including the bitten lady is irresponsible. It's her fault that HER dog ran into his home and she happened to be in there?My wife used to have a chow mix, before i met her. It bit her 2yo daughter in the neck as she stepped over it and almost killed her, just missed the jugular. Nice family doggy. My sister's poodle was biting me last night because that's how it plays sometimes. When a dog that isn't a pitbull does that, it's kind of cute I guess, but dangerous when a pit does it. I'll agree that some dogs are more prone to violence than others, but it truly depends on the dog and its treatment. Two examples: A friend of mine (a piano teacher) adopted a formerly abused rottweiler from a shelter. She had kids walking in and out of her house for lessons, and this dog never so much as growled at any of them. It was an angel. On the other hand, a neighbour purchased a dalmatian mix puppy that savaged a 3-year-old girl. If you're going to make a fuss - which I do think you should do - make sure that the same rules apply to all dogs in the neighbourhood. These anecdotes establish no cause and effect whatsoever. Your assumption seems to be that if a dog is gentle, it's because it was raised that way plus was genetically predisposed towards gentleness. That doesn't exactly illuminate. I guess a pitbull is gentle until it isn't by that logic, but I don't think it's worth risking the safety of children to gauge the turning point. Some breeds are simply more aggressive and powerful. They're animals. All the love and unconditional trust in their "doing the right thing" isn't going to stop them from being animals. It's ridiculous. Even Seigfried or Roy blamed himself after being mauled, and you would think they would describe themselves as the biggest animal lovers in the world. And they might be, but people are stupid when they project human motivation and understanding into animals, even domesticated ones. If you won't tolerate a pit bull being off their leash, you shouldn't tolerate any

Norcal, I would do everything I could to get those dogs out of that neighborhood. In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Ber***** and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) Since 1975, fatal attacks have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

In Canine homicides and the dog bite epidemic: do not confuse them, it has been pointed out that the dog bite epidemic as a whole involves all dogs and all dog owners, not just the breeds most likely to kill.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

* Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.

* An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

* Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack. To me, the part in bold is meaningless, the dog equivalent of "the lord works in mysterious ways." If the overwhelming majority of past dog attacks were perpetuated by pitbulls and Rotts, then to me it stands to reason that all dogs are NOT created the same, and that those two breeds are more likely to cause injury.

Back to my ex's ******** brother. He had to bring the dog up from Texas to NYC because nobody in his family back in Texas would watch it because they were afraid. ******, a dog lover of the unconditional kind, poo-poohed the notion of his dog being dangerous or worthy of being feared, and when we discussed how his dad didn't want the dog around because one day the dog just started and growled at him for no reason, he blamed it on his dad for "probably giving the dog a weird look." :sad:

35ft6
08-27-2007, 11:35 PM
^ Pit bulls are simply physically stronger than most, if not all, other breeds. So, when they 'snap', they can potentially do more damage. This, combined with the fact that "young morons" gravitate to them, and the media's sensationalism, explains their unfortunate reputation.
Every breed of dog, given equal 'upbringing' and human influence, is just as capable of 'snapping' as is the pit bull - no more, and no less. It's just that the pit bull, due to its superior physical strength, can cause more damage when it 'snaps' than can other, less physically strong breeds. Do you think all breeds of dogs are equally predisposed to, say, retrieving dead game? Did you know that dogs have been bred not just to look differently but to behave differently? When a dog, like the pitbull, has incredibly strong jaws, what do you suppose they were bred to do? Nature AND nurture are factors here, and it's folly to suppose that humans are so great that through nurture they can completely neutralize the nature of animals.

Deuce
08-28-2007, 12:11 AM
From what I've experienced, this is absolutely correct. My ex-gf's ******** brother had a pitbull. It seemed like the gentlest dog in the world, but one day my GF woke him up so she could open her closet, he was asleep in front of it, and it mauled her. He almost bit off her fingers as she fought him off...
All this tells me is that, due to a negative experience of a personal friend of yours with a pit bull, you have something against them.

Gee... if my friend got hit by a Ford Taurus, should I hate all Ford Tauruses?

Even Seigfried or Roy blamed himself after being mauled, and you would think they would describe themselves as the biggest animal lovers in the world. And they might be, but people are stupid when they project human motivation and understanding into animals, even domesticated ones. If you won't tolerate a pit bull being off their leash, you shouldn't tolerate any
Now you're comparing tigers to domestic dogs.
Not only tigers... but Las Vegas, 'show' tigers...

* Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
In trying to 'prove' your point that pit bulls are more dangerous than any other type of dog, you offered what seemed to be an article of some sort on dog attacks.
Unfortunately for you, the article also produced some common sense, like the quotes both above and below.

.
* Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

To me, the part in bold is meaningless, the dog equivalent of "the lord works in mysterious ways." If the overwhelming majority of past dog attacks were perpetuated by pitbulls and Rotts, then to me it stands to reason that all dogs are NOT created the same, and that those two breeds are more likely to cause injury.
How about an injection of logic into your sensationalistic condemnation of pit bulls (and Rottweillers)...
The majority of past dog attacks were perpetuated by pit bulls and Rotweillers because more "young morons" own these two breeds than any other type of breed.
It is very likely, even, that "young morons" own more pit bulls and Rottweillers than all other breeds of dog combined.
THIS is why more pit bulls and rotweillers attack than any other breed - because pit bulls and rotweillers have an overwhelmingly higher number of idiots as owners than any other breed.

Phil
08-28-2007, 12:13 AM
I agree that ALL dogs should be controlled and kept on a leash, but...this all smacks, to me, of more mass hysterial ala the constant "ter-rist" fear mongering that we've been inundated with for the last few years. Oh, and also food and pedophile scares, etc., etc. We are becoming a nanny state that is extremely pre-disposed to fear and paranoia. The list of fatalities that Norcal posted is sobering, but I'm not sure this is the full story...though maybe it is.

I think anyone who TRAINS a dog to kill-a pit, sheppherd, etc., should be jailed for a long time. The problem isn't the dogs...as usual, its the HUMANS.

I've read that a pit bull, raised from birth by a good family, and given love and care, will be as friendly and obedient as just about any other dog. Most of the pits that I've "met" are a helluva lot friendlier than the ill-tempered rat-like chihuahuas that seem to populate my neighborhood. But I'm not a dog expert...but again, I think the "pit bull" scare smacks of the knee-jerk paranoia that has overtaken our country (and the UK).

Dilettante
08-28-2007, 12:16 AM
has overtaken our country (and the UK).

And Spain for that matter.

35ft6
08-28-2007, 12:41 AM
All this tells me is that, due to a negative experience of a personal friend of yours with a pit bull, you have something against them. Yes. And you're really no different:^ I agree. This has been my experience.

- DeuceGee... if my friend got hit by a Ford Taurus, should I hate all Ford Tauruses? If this Ford Taurus was the sentient kind, I would understand if he hated THAT particular Taurus, sure.Now you're comparing tigers to domestic dogs.
Not only tigers... but Las Vegas, 'show' tigers... I'm comparing an animal to an animal. Likewise, I always found those "When Animals Attack" shows to be quite funny. They should just call it "When Animals Behave Like Animals."In trying to 'prove' your point that pit bulls are more dangerous than any other type of dog, you offered what seemed to be an article of some sort on dog attacks.
Unfortunately for you, the article also produced some common sense, like the quotes both above and below. But what do you think of the numbers? One third pitbull, and half by Rotts. And keep in mind that pitbulls and rotts aren't the most common breeds of pets, which suggests their propensity to attack is even more disproportionate. You should give me some credit for keeping that last part in. Most people only post quotations that unequivocally support their position.How about an injection of logic into your sensationalistic condemnation of pit bulls (and Rottweillers)...
The majority of past dog attacks were perpetuated by pit bulls and Rotweillers because more "young morons" own these two breeds than any other type of breed. Links, please.It is very likely, even, that "young morons" own more pit bulls and Rottweillers than all other breeds of dog combined. You do realize that you're just speculating here.
THIS is why more pit bulls and rotweillers attack than any other breed - because pit bulls and rotweillers have an overwhelmingly higher number of idiots as owners than any other breed.I look forward to you providing real evidence to support this claim.

Deuce
08-28-2007, 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by Deuce http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1698969#post1698969)
All this tells me is that, due to a negative experience of a personal friend of yours with a pit bull, you have something against them.


Yes. And you're really no different:


Quote:
^ I agree. This has been my experience.

- Deuce

^ No - I am speaking based on 4 decades of observation of various breeds of dogs, whereas you are invoking one specific incident, which seems to have resulted in your paranoia against a certain breed of dog.


Now you're comparing tigers to domestic dogs.
Not only tigers... but Las Vegas, 'show' tigers...

I'm comparing an animal to an animal. Likewise, I always found those "When Animals Attack" shows to be quite funny. They should just call it "When Animals Behave Like Animals."

^ So... you're saying that no distinction can be made between animals who have been domesticated for hundreds of years and animals from the wild?


In trying to 'prove' your point that pit bulls are more dangerous than any other type of dog, you offered what seemed to be an article of some sort on dog attacks.
Unfortunately for you, the article also produced some common sense, like the quotes both above and below.

But what do you think of the numbers? One third pitbull, and half by Rotts. And keep in mind that pitbulls and rotts aren't the most common breeds of pets, which suggests their propensity to attack is even more disproportionate.

^ I've answered this already - as seen in my quotes below.

You should give me some credit for keeping that last part in. Most people only post quotations that unequivocally support their position.

^ Fine - I give you credit.

How about an injection of logic into your sensationalistic condemnation of pit bulls (and Rottweillers)...
The majority of past dog attacks were perpetuated by pit bulls and Rotweillers because more "young morons" own these two breeds than any other type of breed.
Links, please.

It is very likely, even, that "young morons" own more pit bulls and Rottweillers than all other breeds of dog combined.
You do realize that you're just speculating here.

^ Not at all - I am basing it on decades of personal observation. You'd have seen the same thing, had you bothered to open your eyes, and had you been able to find some objectivity on this issue.


THIS is why more pit bulls and rotweillers attack than any other breed - because pit bulls and rotweillers have an overwhelmingly higher number of idiots as owners than any other breed.

I look forward to you providing real evidence to support this claim.

^ You ask for "evidence" because you know that it is difficult, at best, to provide any for this type of thing. How is "an idiot", or a "young moron" defined? Do you honestly believe that statistics are kept on this type of thing? Of course you don't.
This is simply your particular form of manipulation, designed to make yourself appear to be the 'winner'.
I think little of your tactic.

As stated earlier, my observation and experience has shown me that pit bulls and rottweillers are owned mostly by the "young moron" type, and that these types of people own more pit bulls and rottweillers than any other breed of dogs, and, quite likely, than all other breeds combined.
And I firmly believe that those living with their eyes open will have observed the same thing.
Kind of like seeing that more rich persons drive Ferraris than drive Chevy Cavaliers.

origmarm
08-28-2007, 01:28 AM
Dogs are a subject I feel strongly about. My family has owned many dogs and we used to train gun and hunting dogs. We have also trained several security dogs (Alsatians and Rottweilers)

Pit Bull Terriers (not a breed, but a range of breeds), Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brasileiro are all banned in the UK under the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991 I believe). This legislation however is (until recently) not very widely enforced.

As someone who has spent a lot of time when young training dogs and living with many there are several points I want to make here.

- MOST dogs are not inherently violent.
- MOST of the dog's behaviour is a result of training and conditioning
- MOST dogs, even those displaying agressive tendencies can be controlled if well looked after and if the owner understands their nature.

That said INSTINCT is probably the most important thing in dogs that I have come across. They can be trained to do certain things guaranteed, but in a situation that is new or strange to the dog they are led PRIMARILY by instinct. This comes across very heavily in training. You can train all dogs to be guard dogs, some are naturally far better at it. You can train all dogs to track rabbits, or point/guide hunters, but again some are far better at it. Lastly and germain to this thread, you can train some dogs to attack, some are naturally far better at it and BRED SELECTIVELY to do this. These characteristics are displayed today in muscle mass, jaw shape and size, type of teeth, body structure (i.e. short with a low centre of gravity), short necks etc... The instinct to BITE and HOLD in these dogs is strong. Unless you train them to release, many will not instinctively do so. The DEFAULT response to fear, shock, or a perceived threat to their superiority (dogs are extremely hierarchical and place people in this hierarchy) in these dogs is to bite. You can train and control these dogs and teach them how to react in situations. MOST owners however do not have the skills required to do this for fighting breeds.

To respond to some specific posts (please excuse the edits):

There are no "inherently dangerous" types of dog.

I would suggest that this is incorrect. While all types of dog can be trained and controlled, when they reach a new situation this is where their instinct takes over. You see this in many types of dog. I for example have owned Weimeraners who have the most excellent hunting instincts and are amazing pointers with little or no training. In the case of the various breeds of "pit bull terrier" being discussed these dogs have been selectively bred for certain physical characteristics (body mass, centre of gravity, jaw shape and shortness...) but MOST IMPORTANTLY they have been selectively bred for their AGRESSIVE INSTINCTS. This is the case with the dogs listed in the UK act and also to a certain extent (though less) with Rottweilers and German Shephards (these, while they can be agressive have a primary instinct to stand and defend, or guard, they will rarely actually bite on instinct, normally herd and act very agressively to threaten).

Pit bulls were originally bred as bulldogs were too passive for fighting. They crossed bulldogs with terriers (English terriers, primarily white/black (staffs) and brown) to achieve this agressive tendency. They also as an aside were selectively bred with certain terrier breeds known to be extremely loyal (to allow the owners to seperate their dogs during fights without being bitten). These breeds were also selected as they tend to ATTACK rather than stand their ground and defend (as a bulldog does). This is the PRIME REASON these dogs exist, this is the reason they were brought into being. Their primary instinct when faced with an unknown situation, or one where they feel threatened is to BITE and HOLD. As such they are inherently dangerous in an untrained state.

A good owner can control this and train the dog well but the risk lies with a bad owner. This is the human influence aspect. The point is that while a good owner can teach this dog and control it, some cannot. This risk is not present with many other breeds, the problem is the default instinctive response.

Every breed of dog, given equal 'upbringing' and human influence, is just as capable of 'snapping' as is the pit bull - no more, and no less. It's just that the pit bull, due to its superior physical strength, can cause more damage when it 'snaps' than can other, less physically strong breeds.

The first part here is incorrect (the second of course stands, but primarily due to the dog's nature to hold the bite). Having owned (rather than trained in this instance) many dogs. I can tell you straight away that some of them are far more likely to "snap" than others. This with the same training and home. When trained correctly the end result with all breeds SHOULD be the same, it just requires different techniques and effort to get you there. While all dogs CAN and SHOULD be trained and controlled so that your above statement is true, inherently the different breeds start from different points and instinctively react different ways to provocation or the unknown.

I have friends who own two 'pit bulls' but they are not the typical American Pit Bull (the in-bred, aggressive kind). They are well-bred, from registered lines of something or other Bulldog (sorry I can't remember the real name). These are very docile, friendly, even affectionate dogs and I really like them

While I have quoted the whole post here, this is the point. Most bulldogs, while as Fee points out do have a good underlying ability to bite, tend to be docile and affectionate. They do not have this underlying agressive nature while has been bred into the terrier crossbreeds. Some will have more or less of this tendency. The more you can relate your breed to a bulldog, the less generally it will have

Pit bulls are by far the most known dogs to attack kids

This is correct statistically, IF you lump all the "pit bull terrier" breeds together. That and their numbers (i.e there are more of them than some more agressive breeds) skew it a bit. By far the worst if you control statistically for this are Dogo Argentinos.

Since when are German Shepherds considered to be a dangerous animal? You are aware they are trained to "be" vicious by their handlers - the reason they are chosen for police duty is their ability to follow commands and their loyalty (combined with superiour intelligence, stamina and muscular build) - not for some "mean" or "violent" personality trait.

This is mostly correct. They are amongst my favourite breeds to train as they are extremely intelligent and above all, have an ability to relate situtations i.e if you train it to do two things in isolation and then combine the two, the dog is clever enough most times to understand this without further training. They are also selected as they have a natural herding and guarding ability i.e. they like to sit and watch situations a lot, they are very good at moving animals/people into corners/directions etc..They are however excellent attack dogs also but then have to be trained to "hold" the bite. They do not have an agressive first response instinct. They do however have two problems associated with them. One is early onset dimentia. Many many police and security dogs are retired early (and often put to sleep) because of this. In its medium/later stages this can cause the dog to attack or be extremely agressive, even to its handler or owner. This is often completely out of character for the dog. Many owners cannot bear to be parted with their animal even when it becomes dangerous and unpredictable and this has led to problems. The majority of Shephard attacks have come from dogs older than 7rs if my memory is correct (I can't find the paper on this that I had so if anyone wants to challenge this one, most welcome :)).

Having said all this, I do think the hysteria surrounding this debate is overblown. If the dogs are controlled (i.e. leashed or contained in the property) you should not have a problem with them. Additionally you should probably assume their owners are responsible and aware of their dogs, I would suggest that you go and talk to them about your concerns.

While I may seem to come down on the side of the people who think these dogs are a problem, I DO NOT think this. I think that ownership of certain breeds conveys responsibilities. All dogs can be enjoyed and safe providing they are correctly trained and controlled. In the case of some breeds this is more challenging than others. If you are careful and train your dog well, most breeds will never cause problems, though I would not recommend certain breeds for households with small children. All dogs may be enjoyed for the wonderful animals they are if this is the case.

A VERY SMALL minority of dogs will ever attack. The key is to train your animal well from the start (i.e very young) and be honest with yourself about the responsibilities your breed conveys. Even dangerous, abused, vicious dogs rarely initiate an attack. IF a dog attacks, for whatever reason, it should IMMEDIATELY be put down or transferred to a training centre. Typically this means the owner cannot handle it and if the dog has responded this way once, chances are it will do so again unfortunately

Phil
08-28-2007, 01:37 AM
Maybe he was attacked by the rare and little understood "pit cat" ;o)

Well, you got your Nice kitties:

http://www.nicewallpapers.info/pics/animals/tigers/tigers_000.jpg

...and then there are your BAD cats:

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w239/zoznack/acat.jpg

Fearsome Forehand
08-28-2007, 03:44 AM
And then there are the fat cats.

Those pit cats are inherently dangerous. I know based on decades of personal experience.

Great, intelligent post, Origmarm, You actually know what you're writing about and managed to express your views without appearing condescending or sanctimonious. Well played.

I find it sensible that the UK has banned certain notorious breeds. I don't understand why anyone would need to own such a breed. I imagine many municipalities in the US have ordinances banning Rotts and Pits and aggressive breeds developed as fighting dogs including much feared Primo Carnera breed. ) closely related to boxers , I believe. ;o) There was a woman in California who was essentially eaten by two of those monsters while she was attempting to open the door of her apartment. Her wonderful neighbors (middle aged lawyers) who owned and bred the dogs that killed her ended up taking an unscheduled and richly deserved vacation at state expense for about 3 to 5 years. ;o)

My opinion, an unread and uninformed as it may be, is why does anyone really need to own such a breed? Akin to why does anyone really need to own an M-16 or a bazooka or a nuclear warhead (or for that matter an SUV?) ;o) What good can come of it for our society? I suppose the nuclear warhead that I have in my basement doesn't pose a threat to anyone if it I don't let it out of the house and I closely adhere to the directions in the owner's manual that came with it. Just as long as I behave responsibly and don't somehow loose its explosive capacity upon my neighbors, all will be well. So why does my ownership of such a device pose a problem for anyone else?

How many kids (and adults) need to be mauled by these breeds before they are ultimately banned in the USA? I think we have already had enough such cases and I don't understand why people living in residential areas (with lot of little kids running about) are allowed to own such dogs. It makes no sense. There are plenty of other breeds one can own that don't have a strong propensity to attack or kill. I haven't read about anyone being mauled by a Yorkie lately (or even by the terrifying Pit Bull/Yorkie mix.)

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 05:18 AM
The worst thing that can happen to a dog breed is for it to become popular. This results in poor breeding, e.g., "puppy mills" cranking them out to meet demand, with no regard for any of the things that a reputable breeder selects for. This can result in a lot of ill-tempered, inbred, psycho dogs running around (note: selective inbreeding of dogs can be a good thing -- random and excessive inbreeding is not).

In the 70's and early 80's, Doberman Pinschers and German Shepherds were the dogs making the headlines. In the late 80's Rottweilers and "Pit Bulls" caught on and started topping lists of attacks on people. The same thing happened with Cocker Spaniels and Dalmations in the late 80's/early 90's, but in the case of Cocker Spaniels, while they led the "bite list" for some time (maybe they still do?), they didn't have the physical traits to do a lot of damage like Dobermans, Shepherds, Rottweilers, "Pit Bulls", and even Dalmations to some extent do.

One thing that helped keep the Dalmations in check was that they were primarily bought by "soccer moms" after seeing Disney's "101 Dalmations" with their kids -- so even though there was the "Puppy Mill Pedigree" thing going on, there wasn't usually the "young moron wanna-be tough guy" owner dynamic going on, like there is with "Pit Bulls" and Rottweilers.

Surely you're kidding me. You seriously correlate a dog killing a cat to killing a child?

In your opinion, what cognitive distinction would the pitbull make?
Do you really think a dog can't tell the difference between a cat and a child?
To address your other point,yeah, all dogs are capable of killing a child( I guess a determined chihuahua could,if given enough time). But a dog that would attack and kill a cat, in a pack or solo, purely for the sport of the kill is
clearly a potentially lethal beast should it snap.
It has not been sufficiently domesticated.
That is ridiculous. There is absolutely no established connection (beyond possible random correlation) between a dog attacking a cat and a dog attacking a human. Dogs attacking cats = so common that is a cliché (e.g., "fighting like cats and dogs"), while dogs attacking humans = relatively rare. Cats attack birds, mice, squirrels, rabbits...I've even seen them lay a dog's nose wide open with one swipe of their paw just because the dog got too close, but they rarely attack humans. You have to have a real deficit of common knowledge to think a dog or cat makes no distinction between fellow critters and humans.

My uncle's dog, Andy the big Treeing Walker (coon hound) was a "kill dog". He was about 120 pounds and dumb as a box of rocks. He wasn't anything special when it came to tracking racoons, but his size and fearlessness made him perfectly suited for "kill dog" duty.

For people not familiar with coon hunting; a "kill dog" is a dog that specializes in killing the racoon after it has been shot out of the tree. You are only allowed by law to use a .22 rimfire to get the coon out of the tree, and the dog(s) have to do the rest. Sometimes the dog loses. Coons can be as big as 50 pounds, which is as big as a lot of full grown coon hounds.

So Andy, true to his nature, had treed the neighbor's fluffy white Persian cat. The cat decided to jump, and was dead before it hit the ground. Andy caught the cat out of the air in his mouth and snapped it in half instantly.

Andy of course, like most dogs, was not even remotely aggressive toward humans, children or otherwise, even though he killed racoons on a nightly basis, and the occasional cat.

ktownva
08-28-2007, 05:22 AM
Cats do attack people. My cat used to hide under the couch, wait for me to walk by, come flying out with claws bared, and go all slap-happy on my ankles. Then she would retreat back under the couch and wait for the process to repeat. She stopped this at about 5 months of age, though.

As far as pitbulls in your neighborhood, that is very unfortunate. I used to have a neighbor with a pitbull that would run loose, and it was a very dramatic experience getting from my driveway to the front door. The dog was not aggressive, but it would come bolting over to greet me whenever I came home. I would not have been as uncomfortable if it had been a golden retriever or something. Thankfully, no one ever got bit and the neighbor moved.

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 05:51 AM
Do you really think a dog can't tell the difference between a cat and a child? No,where did I state that? I don't think that any dog that attacks a child mistakes it for a cat. What a strange bizarre notion!

That is ridiculous. There is absolutely no established connection (beyond possible random correlation) between a dog attacking a cat and a dog attacking a human. Dogs attacking cats = so common that is a cliché (e.g., "fighting like cats and dogs"), while dogs attacking humans = relatively rare. Cats attack birds, mice, squirrels, rabbits...I've even seen them lay a dog's nose wide open with one swipe of their paw just because the dog got too close, but they rarely attack humans. You have to have a real deficit of common knowledge to think a dog or cat makes no distinction between fellow critters and humans.

My uncle's dog, Andy the big Treeing Walker (coon hound) was a "kill dog". He was about 120 pounds and dumb as a box of rocks. He wasn't anything special when it came to tracking racoons, but his size and fearlessness made him perfectly suited for "kill dog" duty.

For people not familiar with coon hunting; a "kill dog" is a dog that specializes in killing the racoon after it has been shot out of the tree. You are only allowed by law to use a .22 rimfire to get the coon out of the tree, and the dog(s) have to do the rest. Sometimes the dog loses. Coons can be as big as 50 pounds, which is as big as a lot of full grown coon hounds.

So Andy, true to his nature, had treed the neighbor's fluffy white Persian cat. The cat decided to jump, and was dead before it hit the ground. Andy caught the cat out of the air in his mouth and snapped it in half instantly.

Andy of course, like most dogs, was not even remotely aggressive toward humans, children or otherwise, even though he killed racoons on a nightly basis, and the occasional cat.I'll repeat myself and I hope people that read these posts read what is written instead of putting their own input on top of other's posts.
A dog that roams in a pack and kills cats for the sport of it is a potential ****** and a child may well be in danger under certain circumstances.
There is no "if A happens then B will surely follow" guarantee but a dog that kills on it's own,not one that's been trained to kill, is a ******.

Serve em Up
08-28-2007, 05:59 AM
I think you need to take this seriously.

Here's a study FWIW.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20773608-1702,00.html

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 06:04 AM
I don't believe this nonsense for a second.

If you p!ss off a dalmation (or any other breed of dog), he is just as likely to snap at you as is a pit bull - no more, no less.
Pit bulls are not inherently aggressive. If they were, 100% of them would attack at some point in their lives.
That's a pure example of wishful thinking!
Pit Bulls were created,selected by having certain qualities,physical and tempermental,bred right into them, to be agressive fighters and maulers unto death!
That is their whole reason for being. Otherwise they'd be just another breed! If you deny that pit bulls have qualities bred into them that make them aggressive and potentially dangerous then you deny the very features that make the pit bull.
Let's just be civil and call it disingenuous.
That isn't the same as saying all pit bulls will then actually become killers. It is to say though there is a danger inherent in the breed not found in other dogs(save for a few other aggressive fighting breeds).

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 06:04 AM
No,where did I state that? I don't think that any dog that attacks a child mistakes it for a cat. What a strange bizarre notion!You didn't -- which is why I quoted 35ft6 rather than you.
I'll repeat myself and I hope people that read these posts read what is written instead of putting their own input on top of other's posts.
A dog that roams in a pack and kills cats for the sport of it is a potential ****** and a child may well be in danger under certain circumstances.
There is no "if A happens then B will surely follow" guarantee but a dog that kills on it's own,not one that's been trained to kill, is a ******.
I don't know what "******" stands for in your post here, but a dog attacking a cat tells us nothing about how the dog will interact with humans -- and I can't stress the word "nothing" enough.

yourmom08
08-28-2007, 06:05 AM
do what my great grandfather did back in the day when his neighbors dog wouldn't stop barking and it's owner wouldn't do anything about it: get a pound of ground beef and a box of X-lax (or however it's spelled) put the the X-lax in little balls of beef and wing them over the fence. The dogs crapped themselves to death. True story. (i'm not responsible for any lawsuit if you do this;) )

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 06:13 AM
You didn't -- which is why I quoted 35ft6 rather than you.

I don't know what "******" stands for in your post here, but a dog attacking a cat tells us nothing about how the dog will interact with humans -- and I can't stress the word "nothing" enough.Then explain why you would put your question in post #56 which was addressed to me?

I don't know why but the system finds the word kil!er too sensitive to include in posts so that is the magic word.And I have to disagree in the case of a dog that hunts in packs and kills for sport.
I'm not claiming a dog that kills for sport is likely to snap someday but
take two dogs,one a pack killer and one not, and that first dog will always be the culprit should something spark it in him.

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 06:33 AM
Then explain why you would put your question in post #56 which was addressed to me?Take a close look at this screenshot to see who I was replying to in that instance:

http://maxim.skyphix.com/quote.png

I don't know why but the system finds the word kil!er too sensitive to include in posts so that is the magic word.And I have to disagree in the case of a dog that hunts in packs and kills for sport.
I'm not claiming a dog that kills for sport is likely to snap someday but
take two dogs,one a pack killer and one not, and that first dog will always be the culprit should something spark it in him.Again, there is no connection. Dogs attacking cats = common. Dogs attacking humans = rare. That should indicate something to you.

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 06:44 AM
Take a close look at this screenshot to see who I was replying to in that instance:
Again, there is no connection. Dogs attacking cats = common. Dogs attacking humans = rare. That should indicate something to you.
It does but it does not address the question: what sort of dog will attack a human when it decides it's time to do so?
Dogs that have already shown a propensity for killing are obviously more likely to attack than a dog that hasn't.
My old golden retriever wasn't terribly bright but had the best temperment ever. That dog was incapable(well,not literally) of attack.
The german shepard next door however, that frequently went roaming with packs and killed cats, was not nearly as trustworthy.

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 07:12 AM
It does but it does not address the question: what sort of dog will attack a human when it decides it's time to do so?
Dogs that have already shown a propensity for killing are obviously more likely to attack than a dog that hasn't.Not only is that connection not obvious, but there is no connection at all. A dog killing a cat gives absolutely no indication about how it will interact with humans.
My old golden retriever wasn't terribly bright but had the best temperment ever. That dog was incapable(well,not literally) of attack.
The german shepard next door however, that frequently went roaming with packs and killed cats, was not nearly as trustworthy.If that German Shepherd attacked humans then it is a random correlation. Dogs attacking cats = par for the course. It is very common. Go to any pound/humane society and you will find plenty of dogs there that are known to not get along with cats. Note that no one is making the irrational "cat killer = more likely to attack humans" connection like you are. If there was a real connection there, these dogs would not be up for adoption.

martin8768
08-28-2007, 07:22 AM
i don't see any problems with having a pit bull their okay dogs, as long as it is properly trained, their actually nice if trained well. if not because of stupid owners or something then theirs a problem, before doing anything wait to see what kind of dog owner your neighbors they are: good, bad, negligent, dont care what the dog does, etc .

WildVolley
08-28-2007, 07:27 AM
I get the general impression that a lot of the people here don't have much experience with dogs, especially the guard dog breeds. Certain dog breeds are more aggressive and prone to bite humans than other dog breeds.

I don't know why so many people find this an uncomfortable truth? Having grown up around a number of different dog breeds, and owning many myself, you end up seeing statistical variation in the dog breeds. Golden retrievers are not as aggressive toward humans as German Shepherds. This is one of the reasons that Golden Retrievers are rarely used as police or guard dogs, but are often used as rescue dogs.

I've seen Filas and Mastiffs used as guard dogs because they don't trust strangers and will bite them. Most of them require no training to accomplish this goal. My Great Dane/Mastiff will be hyper aggressive toward you if you come into her territory, and I didn't train her to do that at all.

Pit Bulls are much more likely to attack other dogs and try to kill them; most dogs will back off when shown signs of submission. This makes pit bulls particularly dangerous when they go on the attack.

In my limited experience, Chihuahuas are aggressive and will surprise attack and bite a lot. If they weighed 100 lbs, they'd probably be responsible for a lot of damage to humans.

origmarm
08-28-2007, 07:37 AM
I get the general impression that a lot of the people here don't have much experience with dogs, especially the guard dog breeds. Certain dog breeds are more aggressive and prone to bite humans than other dog breeds.

I don't know why so many people find this an uncomfortable truth?

Agreed (10)

Dedans Penthouse
08-28-2007, 08:09 AM
Canine profiling. Well, you reap what you sow and pitbulls like it or not, do have a 'rep'.

In any event, one thing you'll never be able to do is get inside a dog's head and ask him: "why'd you kill that child?"

norcal
08-28-2007, 08:32 AM
Nothing to update, no one was there last night. I imagine they are not totally moved in yet.

Thanks for all the input, I'm learning a lot from reading this thread. Who knows, maybe they are vet students at the university and are great owners. Maybe they are idiots who have pitbulls cause DMX was cool a couple years ago. I'll find out.

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 09:03 AM
Not only is that connection not obvious, but there is no connection at all. A dog killing a cat gives absolutely no indication about how it will interact with humans.
If that German Shepherd attacked humans then it is a random correlation. Dogs attacking cats = par for the course. It is very common. Go to any pound/humane society and you will find plenty of dogs there that are known to not get along with cats. Note that no one is making the irrational "cat killer = more likely to attack humans" connection like you are. If there was a real connection there, these dogs would not be up for adoption.
There is no correlation to you. It's common sense to me.
A dog that kills for sport shows an aggressiveness that a dog that doesn't won't have. It's that simple.
Maybe you are confused and think I am saying a dog that kills a cat will therefore definitely attack a human at some point.
I'm not.
All I'm saying is a dog that kills for sport is more suspect than one that doesn't. You don't agree but then you are sticking up for pit bulls so that says a lot to me.

Trainer
08-28-2007, 09:08 AM
Antifreeze....

Moose Malloy
08-28-2007, 09:10 AM
don't mess with cats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm22mnMEORU

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 09:45 AM
There is no correlation to you. It's common sense to me.
A dog that kills for sport shows an aggressiveness that a dog that doesn't won't have. It's that simple.No, common sense is quite the opposite. Common sense should tell you that dog's aggressiveness toward other critters has nothing to do with a dog's aggressiveness toward humans; no more than a fox hound's aggressiveness toward foxes, or a coon hound's aggressiveness toward racoons, or a terrier's aggressiveness toward rats, etc., has anything to do with their aggressiveness toward humans.

And BTW, dogs don't do things for "sport". They aren't humans. They do things according to their instincts or training. They are predatory pack animals by nature. Their packs have a hierarchy, which is why they rarely attack humans. They see humans as higher up the ladder, so to speak. Unfortunately for house cats and other small critters, dogs don't view them as higher up the ladder, they view them as potential prey.
Maybe you are confused and think I am saying a dog that kills a cat will therefore definitely attack a human at some point.
I'm not.No, I know exactly what you are trying to say, and you are wrong.
All I'm saying is a dog that kills for sport is more suspect than one that doesn't. You don't agree but then you are sticking up for pit bulls so that says a lot to me.Aside from this being a fallacious "poisoning the well" attempt on your part, please go ahead and quote the passage where I was "sticking up for pit bulls".

LuckyR
08-28-2007, 10:01 AM
The fact that an animal can perform well at a sport invented by humans (dogfighting), tells you little about what a dog who is not trained for that sport will do in regular circumstances. That would be like saying a Whippet will automatically be able to do Frisbee tricks without training to do so, silly idea, really.

For those that speak about dog "tendencies" and "chances" of being aggressive, lap dogs would have the highest chance of biting a human, not the so called aggressive breeds like Rottweilers, Dobermans and American Staffordshire terriers.

Having said that, as a parent I would closely watch/monitor any dog my daughter might encounter, not just a particular breed.

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 10:16 AM
No, common sense is quite the opposite. Common sense should tell you that dog's aggressiveness toward other critters has nothing to do with a dog's aggressiveness toward humans; no more than a fox hound's aggressiveness toward foxes, or a coon hound's aggressiveness toward racoons, or a terrier's aggressiveness toward rats, etc., has anything to do with their aggressiveness toward humans.Those are all traits bred into certain breeds of dog and say nothing about how they might interact with humans. Aggression is aggression and we just disagree. Based on what you are saying I'm shocked any human ever gets bit or attacked but we all know that's not true.

And BTW, dogs don't do things for "sport". They aren't humans. They do things according to their instincts or training. They are predatory pack animals by nature. Their packs have a hierarchy, which is why they rarely attack humans. They see humans as higher up the ladder, so to speak. Unfortunately for house cats and other small critters, dogs don't view them as higher up the ladder, they view them as potential prey.
No, I know exactly what you are trying to say, and you are wrong.
Aside from this being a fallacious "poisoning the well" attempt on your part, please go ahead and quote the passage where I was "sticking up for pit bulls".Thanks for the clue. I didn't realize dogs weren't human until now.
"Sport" killing when there is no hunger or need to kill, doesn't mean the same to you or me and a pack of dogs. I realize it isn't "sport" in the sense we know it.

And I got your post mixed up with another so, no, you've never said "I am sticking up for pit bulls" and I retract my statement.
In any event this is just a point of disagreement that can't be resolved and for whatever reason dogs bite humans from time to time.
I've lived in a neighborhood where a couple of german shepards would get out from time to time and pick up other strays and go roaming. They killed more than a couple of cats and I wouldn't trust those dogs as far as I could throw them. If that sort of thing doesn't give you any pause,good for you. But I think it's foolhardy to trust a killer dog. End of story.

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 10:37 AM
Those are all traits bred into certain breeds of dog and say nothing about how they might interact with humans. Aggression is aggression and we just disagree.You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you claim the aggression toward other animals says nothing about how they might interact with humans, and then on the other hand you say "aggression is aggression". If "aggression is aggression" then it shouldn't matter to you what the reason for it is.

BTW, "Pit Bulls" were bred to be aggressive toward other dogs, not toward humans. Why don't they get the same pass from you as coon hounds and fox hounds do?

Based on what you are saying I'm shocked any human ever gets bit or attacked but we all know that's not true.Assuming a mentally stable dog, humans only get attacked when the dog feels threatened, feels that its territory is being invaded, or is specifically trained to do so (i.e., an "attack dog").

Dogs can be mentally unstable as well, in which case, all bets are off. Mental instability is more likely with popular breeds, due to the quick and dirty mass production type breeding in order to meet demand. I'm willing to bet that very few dogs who have attacked humans for no apparent reason have a respectable pedigree.

Thanks for the clue. I didn't realize dogs weren't human until now.
"Sport" killing when there is no hunger or need to kill, doesn't mean the same to you or me and a pack of dogs.
And I got your post mixed up with another so, no, you've never said "I am sticking up for pit bulls" and I retract my statement.
Just because a dog is kept fed by humans; that doesn't eliminate its predatory instincts. Cats do the same thing, i.e., killing mice and other small critters that they never eat. They don't sit down and contemplate things -- they do what they are hardwired to do. In the wild, hunting can be triggered either by hunger *or* opportunity. If an animal ignores an opportunity simply because it is not hungry, it may not have the same opportunity when it is hungry. This is not "sport" -- it is part of their instincts for survival, and doesn't simply go away when domesticated.

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 11:00 AM
You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you claim the aggression toward other animals says nothing about how they might interact with humans, and then on the other hand you say "aggression is aggression". If "aggression is aggression" then it shouldn't matter to you what the reason for it is.A terrier's aggression is bred into it in order to get rid of rats. I don't get your point. How is a dog's aggression being channeled? Constructively or not? That's the issue.

BTW, "Pit Bulls" were bred to be aggressive toward other dogs, not toward humans. Why don't they get the same pass from you as coon hounds and fox hounds do? Because I never heard of a coon hound mauling a family member to death for seemingly no reason. Because when I see some low life scummy little gangster wannabe proudly walking his thug accessory around it's always a pit bull and for some unknown reason never a fox hound.

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 11:59 AM
A terrier's aggression is bred into it in order to get rid of rats. I don't get your point. How is a dog's aggression being channeled? Constructively or not? That's the issue.My point is that you were contradicting yourself by saying "aggression is aggression", and at the same time making allowances for apparently..."constructive" aggression?

You need to back away from the idea that a dog's aggression toward other critters has *anything* to do with a dog's aggression toward humans. The two things simply have nothing to do with each other.

Because I never heard of a coon hound mauling a family member to death for seemingly no reason. Because when I see some low life scummy little gangster wannabe proudly walking his thug accessory around it's always a pit bull and for some unknown reason never a fox hound.
That's fine, as long as you realize that your reasoning is not consistent, and contradicts itself.

First you say a dog that attacks a cat is more likely to attack a human, because "aggression is aggression".

Then you backpedal on the "aggression is aggression" stance when presented with the examples of certain hounds and terriers, because they are only doing what they are bred for.

Then you backpedal again when presented with the example of Pit Bulls being bred to be aggressive toward other dogs, not toward humans, and make some sort of arbitrary distinction between "constructive" aggression and aggression that is not "constructive".

35ft6
08-28-2007, 12:10 PM
Having said all this, I do think the hysteria surrounding this debate is overblown. If the dogs are controlled (i.e. leashed or contained in the property) you should not have a problem with them. First off, thanks for that exceptionally thoughtful and informed post. :)

What do you think of gun laws? "If they are controlled you should have no problem with them" is pretty much the stance taken by the US gun-lobby. Additionally you should probably assume their owners are responsible and aware of their dogs, I would suggest that you go and talk to them about your concerns.

While I may seem to come down on the side of the people who think these dogs are a problem, I DO NOT think this. I think that ownership of certain breeds conveys responsibilities. All dogs can be enjoyed and safe providing they are correctly trained and controlled. In the case of some breeds this is more challenging than others. If you are careful and train your dog well, most breeds will never cause problems, though I would not recommend certain breeds for households with small children. There's a sort of circular logic to this because you're saying no dog will attack if it's in the hands of a good owner, and a good owner is somebody who can control his dog from attacking. I would agree that in ideal circumstances, perhaps any animal can be properly contained. At the same time:The instinct to BITE and HOLD in these dogs is strong. Unless you train them to release, many will not instinctively do so. The DEFAULT response to fear, shock, or a perceived threat to their superiority (dogs are extremely hierarchical and place people in this hierarchy) in these dogs is to bite.Could a young child walking towards the dog with a smile on their face, their hands outstretched ready to pet, could that be interpreted as a perceived threat? It just seems to me that as noble and democratic as it might be to "assume" the owners are knowledgeable and careful, it's really giving strangers quite the benefit of a doubt considering how bad the circumstances by which Norcal's faith can be proven unwarranted can be, and according to Deuce's observations, it might even be foolish to assume they're anything more than idiots.Do you really think a dog can't tell the difference between a cat and a child?I worded my response carefully. Through in the word cognitive, etc. Yes, I'm sure the dog can see that they are shaped differently, and even vaguely understand that their masters treat the cat and child differently, but beyond that, I don't think it makes a difference. Most victims of dog bites are children. It's dumb to assume IMO that a dog understands that they're never to bite a child, his/her life being more precious than a cat's and all.[QUOTE=MaximRecoil;1699428]
Again, there is no connection. Dogs attacking cats = common. Dogs attacking humans = rare.Links, please.WildVolley's

I get the general impression that a lot of the people here don't have much experience with dogs, especially the guard dog breeds. Certain dog breeds are more aggressive and prone to bite humans than other dog breeds.

I don't know why so many people find this an uncomfortable truth? Same reason many parents think their child is the smartest, best looking, and best behaved person in the school, I suppose. I wonder if people always projected human motivation, emotions, and powers of thought to animals this much or if it's relatively recent.The fact that an animal can perform well at a sport invented by humans (dogfighting), tells you little about what a dog who is not trained for that sport will do in regular circumstances. You don't think dogs fought in the wild? Man added the betting, rules, and arena, but they didn't exactly "invent" evolution, aka animals fighting for survival and supremacy.That would be like saying a Whippet will automatically be able to do Frisbee tricks without training to do so, silly idea, really. Some dogs take to catching frisbees more naturally. Some dogs love fetch more than others.Having said that, as a parent I would closely watch/monitor any dog my daughter might encounter, not just a particular breed.You would be equally worried by your daughter being left alone with a golden retriever than with a pit bull, eh?

Nobody responded to the following, which sums up how I feel quite well.My opinion, an unread and uninformed as it may be, is why does anyone really need to own such a breed? Akin to why does anyone really need to own an M-16 or a bazooka or a nuclear warhead (or for that matter an SUV?) ;o) What good can come of it for our society? I suppose the nuclear warhead that I have in my basement doesn't pose a threat to anyone if it I don't let it out of the house and I closely adhere to the directions in the owner's manual that came with it. Just as long as I behave responsibly and don't somehow loose its explosive capacity upon my neighbors, all will be well. So why does my ownership of such a device pose a problem for anyone else?

How many kids (and adults) need to be mauled by these breeds before they are ultimately banned in the USA? I think we have already had enough such cases and I don't understand why people living in residential areas (with lot of little kids running about) are allowed to own such dogs. It makes no sense. There are plenty of other breeds one can own that don't have a strong propensity to attack or kill. I haven't read about anyone being mauled by a Yorkie lately (or even by the terrifying Pit Bull/Yorkie mix.)

LuckyR
08-28-2007, 12:42 PM
You don't think dogs fought in the wild? Man added the betting, rules, and arena, but they didn't exactly "invent" evolution, aka animals fighting for survival and supremacy.


Some dogs take to catching frisbees more naturally. Some dogs love fetch more than others.


You would be equally worried by your daughter being left alone with a golden retriever than with a pit bull, eh?


Nobody responded to the following, which sums up how I feel quite well.


"My opinion, an unread and uninformed as it may be, is why does anyone really need to own such a breed? Akin to why does anyone really need to own an M-16 or a bazooka or a nuclear warhead (or for that matter an SUV?) ;o) What good can come of it for our society? I suppose the nuclear warhead that I have in my basement doesn't pose a threat to anyone if it I don't let it out of the house and I closely adhere to the directions in the owner's manual that came with it. Just as long as I behave responsibly and don't somehow loose its explosive capacity upon my neighbors, all will be well. So why does my ownership of such a device pose a problem for anyone else?

How many kids (and adults) need to be mauled by these breeds before they are ultimately banned in the USA? I think we have already had enough such cases and I don't understand why people living in residential areas (with lot of little kids running about) are allowed to own such dogs. It makes no sense. There are plenty of other breeds one can own that don't have a strong propensity to attack or kill. I haven't read about anyone being mauled by a Yorkie lately (or even by the terrifying Pit Bull/Yorkie mix.)"


Hello! Dogs didn't fight in the wild, dogs are domesticated wolves, they were created by human activity.


Yes, but it a leap to go from "this breed does this better than that breed" to say "all dogs of this breed do this behavior". A common Internet Forum switch technique, but intellectually lacking...


I never said that: see above. But I will say this: I don't let my guard down because the unknown dog is a Golden Retriever, I suggest you do the same.


OK let me get this straight: with all of the known and suspected benefits to human society of pet ownership, the closest analogy we can come up with for a well known and appreciated breed like the American Staffordshire terrier is a nuclear warhead? No wonder noone bothered to knock that illogical idea out of the park...

35ft6
08-28-2007, 01:00 PM
Hello! Dogs didn't fight in the wild, dogs are domesticated wolves, they were created by human activity. There are still "dogs" in the wild. Again, dogs, domesticated or not, will fight just fine on their own. Don't know how many times I've seen two people walking their dogs come across one another only to have their dogs go crazy on each other.Yes, but it a leap to go from "this breed does this better than that breed" to say "all dogs of this breed do this behavior". A common Internet Forum switch technique, but intellectually lacking... That is quite a leap, and if you can quote me making that suggestion, I'll retract it. What I probably said is that all dogs of a certain breed will uniformly have certain propensities.I never said that: see above. But I will say this: I don't let my guard down because the unknown dog is a Golden Retriever, I suggest you do the same. Okay, then you agree.OK let me get this straight: with all of the known and suspected benefits to human society of pet ownership, the closest analogy we can come up with for a well known and appreciated breed like the American Staffordshire terrier is a nuclear warhead? No wonder noone bothered to knock that illogical idea out of the park... There are already several species of animals that are legally banned from becoming pets, in fact MOST animals, so this idea while illogical to you, is quite reasonable to much of the western world.

alwaysatnet
08-28-2007, 01:18 PM
My point is that you were contradicting yourself by saying "aggression is aggression", and at the same time making allowances for apparently..."constructive" aggression?

You need to back away from the idea that a dog's aggression toward other critters has *anything* to do with a dog's aggression toward humans. The two things simply have nothing to do with each other.


That's fine, as long as you realize that your reasoning is not consistent, and contradicts itself.

First you say a dog that attacks a cat is more likely to attack a human, because "aggression is aggression".

Then you backpedal on the "aggression is aggression" stance when presented with the examples of certain hounds and terriers, because they are only doing what they are bred for.

Then you backpedal again when presented with the example of Pit Bulls being bred to be aggressive toward other dogs, not toward humans, and make some sort of arbitrary distinction between "constructive" aggression and aggression that is not "constructive".
This thread has already gone on a lot longer then I care to think about the subject.
All I know is I don't like or trust pit bulls and they have become fashion accessories for little thugs. I would be extremely nervous if a pit bull were in my neighborhood.
If you want to think I've "backpedaled" or whatever that's fine by me.

I know pit bulls are extremely aggressive towards other dogs and I know they've mauled many a family member.
Every newspaper account is always the same. "It was a good dog", the owner said. "Something happened to spook him. I don't understand."
Meanwhile someone's grandma or the neighbor child is dead.
I'm not backing away from the idea that an aggressive dog is a threat,be it to other animals or humans. An aggressive dog is a dangerous dog. Period.
I'll stick with golden retrievers,okay? I think it would be instructive to reread the list in post #8.

QuietDaze
08-28-2007, 02:23 PM
Wow - so much ignorance and intolerance. And by ignorance I mean the actual definition 'not knowing'. Animal aggression is different from human aggression. It's a fact. Pitbull 'type' dogs are not bred for human aggression, however they do have a predisposition to be aggressive towards small animals and other dogs. Pitbull 'type' dogs are overwhelmingly people friendly. The ones who are human aggressive have been made that way. The media seems to have America and other countries thinking that pitties are eating babies every night. It's about irresponsibility and lack of knowledge. Do thugs gravitate toward these dogs - absolutely. Who actually knows what 'type' of person raises pits? Most people don't even register their animals so you'll never truly know. What is the general description of a person who fights dogs? Young black male? Old rednecks? Hispanics? My point is simply that we are influenced by the media and what the media chooses to show us. They don't show you the pits who are therapy dogs, or rescue dogs. They focus on the abused, mistreated and poorly bred animals who should have been put down. They never retract their 'pitbull' attack stories when the dog in question wasn't a pit after all. Some of ya'll are brainwashed.

It all boils down to people who are at fault, not an entire breed. Someone mentioned a child with its hands outstretched to a dog and she gets bitten. Why don't people teach their children how to behave around dogs? I can't tell you how many people let their small child walk up to my dog with their little hands outstretched. Sheer foolishness. Research why children are bitten more often than adults.

People absolutely did create dogfighting. Not literally but it is not natural for dogs to be 'trained' to attack other dogs, to 'practice' on other dogs, to be 'rewarded' for killing another dog, come on. That's all man made.

Why do people (like me I guess) choose to own aggressive breeds? I chose my rottie because after the research and meeting them, going to dog shows and talking to breeders they suit my lifestyle and what I wanted in a dog. Yes, I do want a protective dog, I want a dog who is obedient and who likes to work. I wanted a dog that required little grooming and maintence and a big dog who likes to jog, play and exercise. I wanted a dog with a strong will and tendency to guard. I wanted a dog who doesn't think everyone is their friend, until they know you a little better. Those were the qualities that attracted me to my dog. I didn't pick him based on an insecurity about my own self image. Nor did I pick him because he was 'cute'. I made an informed decision which most people don't.

As I've stated before, I have no problem with REGULATING breeds, simply because people will be people and in every bunch you have one who should have been culled. I have a problem with blaming an entire type of dog because of a reputation and irresponsible owners.

QuietDaze
08-28-2007, 02:29 PM
It's her fault that HER dog ran into his home and she happened to be in there?

It wasn't HER dog that ran into the house, it was a neighbor's dog. Yes, it's incredibly stupid to leave your door open so your dog can roam the neighborhood. Also incredibly dumb or brave to put your face into a dog fight. Even more unbelievable is that you leave your door open and have a nonfunction pistol. Dumb all the way around. Sad that she got hurt and the dogs should be put down immediately and all of the owners whose animals were running the streets should be held responsible. Doesn't change the basic stupidity OR the fact that once again the media made it appear as though she were sleeping in her bed when these two blood thirsty pitbulls jumped through her plate glass window and attacked her.

MaximRecoil
08-28-2007, 02:36 PM
Again, there is no connection. Dogs attacking cats = common. Dogs attacking humans = rare.

Links, please.You want links showing that dogs commonly attack cats and do not commonly attack humans??

How about www.common-knowledge.com?

Deuce
08-28-2007, 08:21 PM
The media seems to have America and other countries thinking that pitties are eating babies every night. It's about irresponsibility and lack of knowledge. Do thugs gravitate toward these dogs - absolutely... My point is simply that we are influenced by the media and what the media chooses to show us. They don't show you the pits who are therapy dogs, or rescue dogs... They never retract their 'pitbull' attack stories when the dog in question wasn't a pit after all. Some of ya'll are brainwashed.
^ I agree.
The same can be said about the reputations of bears and sharks. Media sensationalism has a strong tendency to distort reality.

That's a pure example of wishful thinking!
Pit Bulls were created,selected by having certain qualities,physical and tempermental,bred right into them, to be agressive fighters and maulers unto death!
That is their whole reason for being. Otherwise they'd be just another breed! If you deny that pit bulls have qualities bred into them that make them aggressive and potentially dangerous then you deny the very features that make the pit bull.
Let's just be civil and call it disingenuous.
That isn't the same as saying all pit bulls will then actually become killers. It is to say though there is a danger inherent in the breed not found in other dogs(save for a few other aggressive fighting breeds).
So... after telling us all how pit bulls are bred to be aggressive and killers, and that this is their only reason for being, complete with exclamation points - and even underlining the word 'DEATH'... after all that, you then meekly state the reality that not all pit bulls will actually become killers.

... But... wait a minute here... Didn't you emphatically state in the beginning of your post above that pit bulls are bred to be killers? That means that they are born killers. You have argued this point aggressively in several posts. Yet you also say that not all pit bulls will become killers.
Excuse me if I fail to follow you. You seem to want to cover both sides of the issue, just to be safe, and so no-one will accuse you of being wrong.

The FACT is that only a very small percentage of pitt bulls kill or maul people. If pit bulls were indeed bred to be all those dangerous and nasty - and fatal - things that you claim, they would be killing all over the place.
But only a very small percentage of them behave in this way.
Seems that the facts make your perspective wrong.

As for countries banning pit bulls...
Rather than having a country ban pit bulls, they should be banning idiots and "young morons". That would solve the "pit bull problem" immediately.
I would be more than happy to provide each interested country with a definition of an "idiot" and "young moron" that they could use for this weeding out purpose.

CanadianChic
08-28-2007, 08:40 PM
As for countries banning pit bulls...
Rather than having a country ban pit bulls, they should be banning idiots and "young morons". That would solve the "pit bull problem" immediately.
[/FONT]

Interesting theory Deuce but where do you propose we put all these idiots and young morons? I would suggest Australia but they have had the burden once of taking in English throwaways and criminals - I cannot think of an island big enough to hold them all. Perhaps Greenland.....;)

35ft6
08-29-2007, 01:07 AM
You want links showing that dogs commonly attack cats and do not commonly attack humans??

How about www.common-knowledge.com?That's what I thought, homez.

MaximRecoil
08-29-2007, 04:00 AM
You want links showing that dogs commonly attack cats and do not commonly attack humans??

How about www.common-knowledge.com?That's what I thought, homez.
LOL @ "homez".

Why don't you think about what you asked for links regarding? Would you also ask for links if I were to say that cats commonly attack mice but rarely attack humans?

Dogs are often described as "man's best friend".

People who are constantly fighting are often said to be "fighting like cats and dogs".

I suppose those very old and established sayings do not reflect reality at all, huh?

QuietDaze
08-29-2007, 05:35 AM
Dogs naturally chase cats...some injure and kill them, some don't *shrug*

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/dogscats.html

alwaysatnet
08-29-2007, 06:14 AM
^ I agree.
The same can be said about the reputations of bears and sharks. Media sensationalism has a strong tendency to distort reality.


So... after telling us all how pit bulls are bred to be aggressive and killers, and that this is their only reason for being, complete with exclamation points - and even underlining the word 'DEATH'... after all that, you then meekly state the reality that not all pit bulls will actually become killers.

... But... wait a minute here... Didn't you emphatically state in the beginning of your post above that pit bulls are bred to be killers? That means that they are born killers. You have argued this point aggressively in several posts. Yet you also say that not all pit bulls will become killers.
Excuse me if I fail to follow you. You seem to want to cover both sides of the issue, just to be safe, and so no-one will accuse you of being wrong.

The FACT is that only a very small percentage of pitt bulls kill or maul people. If pit bulls were indeed bred to be all those dangerous and nasty - and fatal - things that you claim, they would be killing all over the place.
But only a very small percentage of them behave in this way.
Seems that the facts make your perspective wrong.

As for countries banning pit bulls...
Rather than having a country ban pit bulls, they should be banning idiots and "young morons". That would solve the "pit bull problem" immediately.
I would be more than happy to provide each interested country with a definition of an "idiot" and "young moron" that they could use for this weeding out purpose.Pit bulls were in fact bred to be fighters,maulers,killers. Their jaw structure and biting power,their physique,their temperment, everything about the dog was designed with fighting in mind.
Does anyone wish to challenge that?

It's also a fact that not all pit bulls will maul and kill. The two statements of fact aren't contradictory at all. Nevertheless the possibility that each and every pit bull could be a killer absolutely exists. The potential is there to a degree you will find in few other breeds. Many lives are lost every year due to pit bull(or other large aggressive breeds)maulings and attacks. I guess it's always the victim's fault,right?

Those are all the facts! If you don't like them don't blame me. I didn't create the infamous breed.

origmarm
08-29-2007, 06:33 AM
What do you think of gun laws? "If they are controlled you should have no problem with them" is pretty much the stance taken by the US gun-lobby.

An interesting one, I get a can of worms feeling on this. To be honest I'm not sure I'm well informed enough to make a judgement. Another thing to add to my reading/research list. At a first glance, the obvious difference here is that one needs a conscious human decision to use it to be dangerous. I do find the comparison of a dog to a sophisticated weapon such as an automatic rifle to be not the best one, I do however see what you're getting at.

There's a sort of circular logic to this because you're saying no dog will attack if it's in the hands of a good owner, and a good owner is somebody who can control his dog from attacking. I would agree that in ideal circumstances, perhaps any animal can be properly contained.

Could a young child walking towards the dog with a smile on their face, their hands outstretched ready to pet, could that be interpreted as a perceived threat? It just seems to me that as noble and democratic as it might be to "assume" the owners are knowledgeable and careful, it's really giving strangers quite the benefit of a doubt considering how bad the circumstances by which Norcal's faith can be proven unwarranted can be, and according to Deuce's observations, it might even be foolish to assume they're anything more than idiots.

Yes admittedly there is a circular logic to this. That said I find it valid, its all about ensuring the combination as such.

The child could indeed (and has been in the past) interpreted by some dogs badly, whether its fear or a return to base instinct in the face of the unknown, or even a reaction to past abuse I think depends on the specifics but I take your point.

I think that as a parent, I would find it more difficult to accept the risks agreed, but then I also believe that there is an overwhelming tempation in modern society to try and legislate all risk away. I am against a ban for this reason and because I feel it is difficult to enforce (UK as evidence) and unduly harsh in light of the statistical risk. I would favour a permit system for certain breeds where owners would be vetted to an extent (i.e for past offences or similar) and would have to complete a brief education prior to owning the dog and then a training course with the dog (think of a similar thing to a driving licence). That said I favour this in the case where legislation is needed at all but I do feel that Deuce is not entirely wide of the mark when he blames the owners, I believe however its a combination of both dog breed and owner.

I think the key here is that a child should never be left alone with an unfamiliar dog at all, and with some dogs never in any circumstances. I think it is incumbent on the owners of certain breeds to ensure that the dog does not roam in an area to which a child has access (for example an unfenced front lawn) or a public area. I also firmly believe in clear, pictoral, warning signs for children on front gates for example where a dog lives (to avoid the girlscouts with cookies coming up the garden path scenario). Its about accepting your responsibilities as a dog owner and a member of society.

The fact that an animal can perform well at a sport invented by humans (dogfighting), tells you little about what a dog who is not trained for that sport will do in regular circumstances. That would be like saying a Whippet will automatically be able to do Frisbee tricks without training to do so, silly idea, really.

I think this ignores the instinct aspect. There is a difference between an animal that can perform and one that will instinctively adopt that behaviour. You can train most dogs to fight, some breeds will fight instinctively, i.e. they are agressive. This difference is shown very clearly in the history of bull terriers. The bulldog can fight very well but was not sufficiently agressive instinctively, hence the terrier cross was bred.

As I've stated before, I have no problem with REGULATING breeds, simply because people will be people and in every bunch you have one who should have been culled. I have a problem with blaming an entire type of dog because of a reputation and irresponsible owners.

I think this is close to the mark. Its easy to blame bad ownership on an entire breed. While the breed has been bred to be more agressive and physically better able to fight, this does not necessarily mean it is a vicious, killer dog. The risk is just greater. I would incidentally not class Rottweilers in this same category. While they are physically well bred for fighting/attack, they have more of a guarding instinct. The trick with Rottweilers is to start young. They are very hierarchical and dominant dogs and this is what makes them come out bad sometimes. If this is controlled early they are wonderful though. Surprsingly very child friendly I have found, extremely protective.

There are two distinct issues here:
- Are pitbulls (amongst other breeds) naturally more predisposed to aggressive behaviour and to attack. Unfortunately yes
- Are all pitbulls dangerous animals. No. It comes down to training and proper handling of these dogs and ensuring that they are controlled.

bluegrasser
08-29-2007, 06:36 AM
Three bulls ?? - they must have some amazing assets to protect.

Fedace
08-29-2007, 06:38 AM
We should just release all the Pitbulls into the wild. they do not make good pets at all, too vicious.

35ft6
08-29-2007, 10:41 AM
An interesting one, I get a can of worms feeling on this. To be honest I'm not sure I'm well informed enough to make a judgement. Another thing to add to my reading/research list. At a first glance, the obvious difference here is that one needs a conscious human decision to use it to be dangerous. I do find the comparison of a dog to a sophisticated weapon such as an automatic rifle to be not the best one, I do however see what you're getting at. I find your thoughtful responses refreshing. Fair enough. I will point out that it's not always conscious human decision that causes gun fatalities and injuries, though. Carelessness is just as significant. Especially with children.

http://break.com/index/shooter-almost-takes-out-cameraman.htmlI think that as a parent, I would find it more difficult to accept the risks agreed, but then I also believe that there is an overwhelming tempation in modern society to try and legislate all risk away. I am against a ban for this reason and because I feel it is difficult to enforce (UK as evidence) and unduly harsh in light of the statistical risk. Other species of "dangerous" animals are already banned (in US, for example, tigers and crocodiles), or only allowed in specific circumstances. Do you feel these laws should be repealed?I would favour a permit system for certain breeds where owners would be vetted to an extent (i.e for past offences or similar) and would have to complete a brief education prior to owning the dog and then a training course with the dog (think of a similar thing to a driving licence). Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that dog activists are like gun activists in the US, with a scorched earth approach to defending their "rights," feeling that every new law is a potential slippery slope. (allowing this law is at the very least an implicit acknowledgment that certain breeds are more dangerous than others, which brings us one step closer to a ban on breeds... unacceptable)I think the key here is that a child should never be left alone with an unfamiliar dog at all, and with some dogs never in any circumstances.This sucks for a guy who buys a house in a certain neighborhood hoping that his children will be safe playing outside on their own, riding their bikes around the street, etc. It seems at some point, everybody experiences their dog getting away from them. Or maybe I'm wrong.

LuckyR
08-29-2007, 11:04 AM
There are still "dogs" in the wild. Again, dogs, domesticated or not, will fight just fine on their own. Don't know how many times I've seen two people walking their dogs come across one another only to have their dogs go crazy on each other.

That is quite a leap, and if you can quote me making that suggestion, I'll retract it. What I probably said is that all dogs of a certain breed will uniformly have certain propensities.

Okay, then you agree.

There are already several species of animals that are legally banned from becoming pets, in fact MOST animals, so this idea while illogical to you, is quite reasonable to much of the western world.


If your proposal is to criminalize dog ownership, then that is your opinion. I am making that assumption since you address dogs (which are a species) as opposed to breeds of dog. No doubt about it, if there were no dogs, there would be no dog attacks.


That is essentially dog racism or stereotyping. You can get away with it on a human Internet Forum, but saying that Asians have "will uniformly have (a)certain propensit(y)" to do well at Math/Science etc will get you in trouble. But essentially it is the same intellectual argument.


Agreed!


Again, if you want criminalization of dog ownership, go for it. I have my doubts on the viability in our society of such a political idea, but hey, it's America, you have a right to your opinion.

LuckyR
08-29-2007, 11:09 AM
I think this ignores the instinct aspect. There is a difference between an animal that can perform and one that will instinctively adopt that behaviour. You can train most dogs to fight, some breeds will fight instinctively, i.e. they are agressive. This difference is shown very clearly in the history of bull terriers. The bulldog can fight very well but was not sufficiently agressive instinctively, hence the terrier cross was bred.


This is from the AKC (hardly a radical, street cred influenced group of posers) page on the Amercian Staffordshire terrier:

"Temperament
From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog."

35ft6
08-29-2007, 11:44 AM
If your proposal is to criminalize dog ownership, then that is your opinion. If you can find me saying that, show me.I am making that assumption since you address dogs (which are a species) as opposed to breeds of dog. I was responding to your comments on "dog fighting."That is essentially dog racism or stereotyping. Would it be doggy racism to say some dogs can run faster and others can jump higher? You're being ridiculous.You can get away with it on a human Internet Forum, but saying that Asians have "will uniformly have (a)certain propensit(y)" to do well at Math/Science etc will get you in trouble. But essentially it is the same intellectual argument. Men test better than women in math, and have better spatial comprehension. Black people appear to have more raw athletic ability. And so on.

Dedans Penthouse
08-29-2007, 12:12 PM
A PIT-BULL, a bulldog and a black lab are all locked up in the local dog pound. The pit-bull decides to speak freely and says: "Ya know, it wasn't my fault I bit that kid's head off. Then kids have been throwing rocks at me for years and I just couldn't help but jump the fence one day and go after them. Now they are going to put me to sleep."

The bulldog speaks up and says: "I'm in for a similar incident. My master wasn't paying enough attention to me since that stinkin' baby came along and one day while it was crawlin' around on the floor, I bit its leg off. Now they are going to put me to sleep too."

Both the pit-bull and the bulldog look at the lab and ask: "What are you in for?"

The lab replied: "Well, the other day, while my master was away on business, his lady was walking around the house NAKED all day long, cleaning the house. When she went into the bathroom and bent over to clean the tub, I just couldn't take it anymore. I came up behind her, put my front paws on her back and mounted her."

The pit-bull asks: "So, when are you due to be put to sleep?"

And the lab replies: "Oh, I'm not in to be put to sleep. I'm just here to have my nails trimmed."

LuckyR
08-29-2007, 12:40 PM
If you can find me saying that, show me.

I was responding to your comments on "dog fighting."

Would it be doggy racism to say some dogs can run faster and others can jump higher? You're being ridiculous.

Men test better than women in math, and have better spatial comprehension. Black people appear to have more raw athletic ability. And so on.

OK, so how is: "Don't know how many times I've seen two people walking their dogs come across one another only to have their dogs go crazy on each other" relevant to a discussion of a specific breed?


Some folks train pit bulls for the sport of dogfighting (as you well know), however we were speaking of members of the breed not trained in that sport. Apples, oranges.


We were speaking of issues of temperament (as you also know) hence my analogy (also of a nonphysical attribute). Yours of a physical attribute, less relevant.


Thanks for proving my point, three excellent examples of controversial comments that many in our society frown upon commenting on in mixed company.

CanadianChic
08-29-2007, 12:45 PM
Three bulls ?? - they must have some amazing assets to protect.

Interesting Bluegrasser, are you thinking what I'm thinking? ;)

Steady Eddy
08-29-2007, 12:47 PM
That is essentially dog racism or stereotyping. You can get away with it on a human Internet Forum, but saying that Asians have "will uniformly have (a)certain propensit(y)" to do well at Math/Science etc will get you in trouble.

This is interesting. The flaw in an idea is only that it will "get you in trouble".

At one time the idea that the earth went around the sun would also get you in trouble. We're practical nowadays. Let's avoid trouble, so who cares about digging for the truth?

QuietDaze
08-29-2007, 01:05 PM
Other species of "dangerous" animals are already banned (in US, for example, tigers and crocodiles), or only allowed in specific circumstances. Do you feel these laws should be repealed?

So now domestic dogs are being compared to wild animals?

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that dog activists are like gun activists in the US, with a scorched earth approach to defending their "rights," feeling that every new law is a potential slippery slope. (allowing this law is at the very least an implicit acknowledgment that certain breeds are more dangerous than others, which brings us one step closer to a ban on breeds... unacceptable)This sucks for a guy who buys a house in a certain neighborhood hoping that his children will be safe playing outside on their own, riding their bikes around the street, etc. It seems at some point, everybody experiences their dog getting away from them. Or maybe I'm wrong.

Actually I would venture to guess that 99% of dog owners have had a dog get away from them, me included. Compare the millions of dogs in the US alone and actual attacks much less killing. Even the b.s. statistics say that most people are bitten by their own dog and most bites happen on the dogs property.

I'm not actually an 'activist' but a responsible owner of a "dangerous" breed. Responsible owners far outweight irresponsible ones and I think you'll find that many would agree that some type of guidelines or checks and balances need to be in place for PEOPLE because at the end of the day in most cases that is where your problems begin.

TheJRK
08-29-2007, 01:30 PM
Guess what types of people like to own pit bulls?
Invariably it's someone that needs a dangerous killer breed to prove what a big man he is. If you need a dog for companionship then get a golden retriever. If you need one to intimidate people then you get a pit bull(or some other large aggressive breed).
Those are the facts. Period!

Wow, are those really the facts? Let's see...

1. Pit bulls are a "killer" breed - I'm not sure this is real breed but you said it is a fact so...

2. Pit bulls are a large, aggressive (you forgot to put "killer" here) breed - The average size of a pit bull is between 45-70 lbs (which is just so "ginormous" OMG!!11!!!

CanadianChic
08-29-2007, 01:33 PM
Wow, are those really the facts? Let's see...

1. Pit bulls are a "killer" breed - I'm not sure this is real breed but you said it is a fact so...

2. Pit bulls are a large, aggressive (you forgot to put "killer" here) breed - The average size of a pit bull is between 45-70 lbs (which is just so "ginormous" OMG!!11!!!

70 pounds of pure muscle is a lot to contend with for children and most women though.

TheJRK
08-29-2007, 01:45 PM
Pit bulls were in fact bred to be fighters,maulers,killers. Their jaw structure and biting power,their physique,their temperment, everything about the dog was designed with fighting in mind.
Does anyone wish to challenge that?

Those are all the facts! If you don't like them don't blame me. I didn't create the infamous breed.

Incorrect. (I know, I know... I'm not allowed to say that because you used the word "fact" several times in your post which makes you automatically right)

They were not bred to be fighters, maulers, killers. The ORIGINAL breed was meant to be a family dog. Oh, I know it sounds crazy to you... but it's the breeds inherent loyalty that causes so many problems. A dog that will do anything to please its "owner" is both a positive and a problem.

TheJRK
08-29-2007, 01:49 PM
70 pounds of pure muscle is a lot to contend with for children and most women though.

You forgot to say 70 pounds of "killer" muscle... you don't want to upset alwaysatnet.

alwaysatnet
08-29-2007, 01:56 PM
What most responsible owners of "dangerous breed" dogs don't acknowledge,or want to, is that the deck is loaded to begin with against the public's saftey when dealing with an animal like the pit bull.
You can be the "responsible" owner of a tiger but if the least little thing goes wrong the results can be devastating. Just ask Sigfried(or Roy).

Any search of newspaper articles regarding pit bulls killing neighbors or family members almost always will include a quote by the pet owner saying something to the effect that his was "a good dog" and had never done that sort of thing before and he was baffled by the dog's behavior.

The reply by the pit bull owners is always an ipso facto one. "Well, he obviously wasn't a good owner or this wouldn't have happened". It's too bad an owner's effectiveness can only be judged retroactively sometimes.
I've never advocated banning the breed(though there are excellent reasons for doing it) but should the public's safety really be jeopardized because any punk with an ego problem can get a pit bull?

alwaysatnet
08-29-2007, 02:04 PM
Wow, are those really the facts? Let's see...

1. Pit bulls are a "killer" breed - I'm not sure this is real breed but you said it is a fact so...

2. Pit bulls are a large, aggressive (you forgot to put "killer" here) breed - The average size of a pit bull is between 45-70 lbs (which is just so "ginormous" OMG!!11!!!Check out the list of dog maulings in post #8 and you tell me: what sort of a dog kills over and over again?
A dog bred specifically to be aggressive,tenacious and vicious.
They literally do kill human beings more than just once or twice in awhile.
I know you think you were being funny and making a point by mocking me but you really have made my points....thanks!

simi
08-29-2007, 02:05 PM
To the O.P...

Not this coming weekend...not tomorrow...not today...but YESTERDAY!!!! Take whatever steps are necessary to protect your family and pets.

norcal
08-29-2007, 02:14 PM
To the O.P...

Not this coming weekend...not tomorrow...not today...but YESTERDAY!!!! Take whatever steps are necessary to protect your family and pets. Well according to Bluegrasser and the Canuckistan Chic these guys are drug dealers to boot. So they have a redeeming quality, maybe I can get a discount.

Seriously, there is a stay at home mom w/ two kids across the street (the one who initially contacted me) and a stay at home mom w/ two kids next door to this house. I doubt I'll have to do anything if (and they no doubt will) they make this their top priority - they won't put up with any threat to their kids.

That being said I haven't seen the guys (or dogs) the last few days.

I will update when I have some more info.

Carry on with the 'pitbulls are satan's spawn' v. 'pitbulls are the product of their environment' battle. It's a good one.

MaximRecoil
08-29-2007, 02:21 PM
Check out the list of dog maulings in post #8 and you tell me: what sort of a dog kills over and over again?
A dog bred specifically to be aggressive,tenacious and vicious.
They literally do kill human beings more than just once or twice in awhile.
I know you think you were being funny and making a point by mocking me but you really have made my points....thanks!
Just to be clear on this, there are about 15 to 20 "dog homocides" in the United States per year. I think that qualifies as "once or twice in a while", given that there are about 75 million dogs in the U.S., and about 300 million people.

Also, the term "pit bull" is generically/erroneously used to cover about 20 different breeds, not to mention all the mixed breeds that may look like a "pit bull". That alone muddies any statistics which mention a "pit bull" (there is no single breed known as "pit bull", and the media isn't interested in getting it right).

alwaysatnet
08-29-2007, 02:38 PM
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
This should add some statistical foundation to the argument. It's certainly true people aren't dying every day from attacks.
Dog bites do send 1,008 people per day to the hospital however and that isn't inconsiderable.
Additionally pit bulls,Rottweillers and Preso Carnarios are responsible for 74% of dog attacks and 65% of killings and 68% of maimings.
The loss of an eye or fingers,etc. may not qualify as a kill but it's still pretty horrific to the victim.

MaximRecoil
08-29-2007, 02:52 PM
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
This should add some statistical foundation to the argument. It's certainly true people aren't dying every day from attacks.
Dog bites do send 1,008 people per day to the hospital however and that isn't inconsiderable.
Additionally pit bulls,Rottweillers and Preso Carnarios are responsible for 74% of dog attacks and 65% of killings and 68% of maimings.
The loss of an eye or fingers,etc. may not qualify as a kill but it's still pretty horrific to the victim.
Again, "pit bull" covers many breeds, as well as mongrels that resemble any of those breeds. You do realize how that affects your statistics, right?

LuckyR
08-29-2007, 03:23 PM
This is interesting. The flaw in an idea is only that it will "get you in trouble".

At one time the idea that the earth went around the sun would also get you in trouble. We're practical nowadays. Let's avoid trouble, so who cares about digging for the truth?

Truth? Did you say truth? Read Post# 97

AndrewD
08-29-2007, 03:33 PM
I agree, roaming cats do so at their own risk.

A well socialised dog will only bark at, chase and attempt to scare a cat or small animal. In 83% of the reported cases of dog attack (irrespective of breed), that same animal has killed or maimed other animals. It is the warning sign that you have an unsocialised and dangerous animal. Those statistics are courtesy of the RSPCA (Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Australia's peak animal welfare agency. It's vile to so easily dismiss the welfare of another animal and, in the case of dog attack, highly negligent.

35ft6
08-29-2007, 03:51 PM
A well socialised dog will only bark at, chase and attempt to scare a cat or small animal. In 83% of the reported cases of dog attack (irrespective of breed), that same animal has killed or maimed other animals. It is the warning sign that you have an unsocialised and dangerous animal. Those statistics are courtesy of the RSPCA (Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Australia's peak animal welfare agency. It's vile to so easily dismiss the welfare of another animal and, in the case of dog attack, highly negligent. Well said. Most cats aren't house cats. I can understand if your cat is killed by a coyote, but I would be concerned by a neighborhood dog who kills cats.

If you're older, you go to the hospital for a dog bite. Perhaps the same attack would send a toddler to the morgue.

35ft6
08-29-2007, 03:56 PM
OK, so how is: "Don't know how many times I've seen two people walking their dogs come across one another only to have their dogs go crazy on each other" relevant to a discussion of a specific breed? You said dogs were taught to fight other dogs by man as if they don't do it instinctually, in the wild, or despite man's efforts at making them sociable.Some folks train pit bulls for the sport of dogfighting (as you well know), however we were speaking of members of the breed not trained in that sport. Apples, oranges. They don't have to be trained. Domestication was all about suppressing and/or re-directing a wild dog or wolves natural aggression. Some breeds more than others have been very successfully pacified, but some breeds have been bred in such a way to enhance their aggression and ability to inflict harm.We were speaking of issues of temperament (as you also know) hence my analogy (also of a nonphysical attribute). Yours of a physical attribute, less relevant. Aggression is a physical and mental attribute. We're talking about natural/instinctual inclinations in dogs, about dogs possessing attributes that other dogs don't. Since we can't talk to dogs and understand how they're feeling, we can only judge a dog's temperament by how it manifests in the form of physical behavior (wagging tail, tail between leg, humping a leg, etc.). Not all dogs are equally aggressive. Even guys with tons of experience with dogs sympathetic to your cause have stated this.Thanks for proving my point, three excellent examples of controversial comments that many in our society frown upon commenting on in mixed company. Controversial for sure. But controversial isn't mutually exclusive to true.

GRANITECHIEF
08-29-2007, 04:01 PM
I just got an email from a tennis buddy i hit with in Tahoe. He can't play tennis this weekend because the series of rabies shots made his shoulder/rotator cuff sore for a while.

Apparently he was attacked by a........










Yep you guessed it. A beaver. It bit him on the leg, back and face, and apparently the face bite left a scar. I dont' think the beaver was properly socialized.

alwaysatnet
08-29-2007, 04:20 PM
Again, "pit bull" covers many breeds, as well as mongrels that resemble any of those breeds. You do realize how that affects your statistics, right?If you know of any instance in particular in which a non pit bull was identified as a pit bull I'd like to know of it. Otherwise I accept the numbers. A pit bull body and head are very distinctive.

35ft6
08-29-2007, 04:24 PM
Yep you guessed it. A beaver. It bit him on the leg, back and face, and apparently the face bite left a scar. I dont' think the beaver was properly socialized. That beaver hates your friend's freedom. :(

Steady Eddy
08-29-2007, 04:29 PM
Truth? Did you say truth? Read Post# 97

Ok so hooray for post #97, :) (but not for post #96) :neutral:

That's a 50% average, which I think it quite good.

alwaysatnet
08-29-2007, 04:35 PM
man vs. beaver...the beaver always wins.

MaximRecoil
08-29-2007, 06:46 PM
If you know of any instance in particular in which a non pit bull was identified as a pit bull I'd like to know of it. Otherwise I accept the numbers. A pit bull body and head are very distinctive.
Again, there is no such breed as a "pit bull". Think about that for a moment.

alwaysatnet
08-29-2007, 06:54 PM
Pit bull is a term that describes several types of dogs with similar physical characteristics. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier and to a lesser extent, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier commonly fall under the category of "pit bull." There are several physically similar breeds that are mistakenly termed "pit bull", including the Indian Bull Terrier, Argentine Dogo, the American Bulldog,the Bull Terrier and the Perro de Presa Canario. These breeds are usually not included by name in any Breed Specific Legislation (see below), but are sometimes included because of a broad definition and confusion as to what a pit bull actually is. [1] All of these breeds as well as many others (including Great Danes, Newfoundlands and Rottweilers) are members of the Molosser family of dog breeds.....
Yes, I am aware. Perhaps all these people who've been mauled are suffering from some mass halucination.

MaximRecoil
08-29-2007, 08:17 PM
Pit bull is a term that describes several types of dogs with similar physical characteristics. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier and to a lesser extent, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier commonly fall under the category of "pit bull." There are several physically similar breeds that are mistakenly termed "pit bull", including the Indian Bull Terrier, Argentine Dogo, the American Bulldog,the Bull Terrier and the Perro de Presa Canario. These breeds are usually not included by name in any Breed Specific Legislation (see below), but are sometimes included because of a broad definition and confusion as to what a pit bull actually is. [1] All of these breeds as well as many others (including Great Danes, Newfoundlands and Rottweilers) are members of the Molosser family of dog breeds.....Indeed.
Yes, I am aware. Perhaps all these people who've been mauled are suffering from some mass halucination.What are you talking about?

Here is an example, since you seem confused. My mechanic has a dog that is 100% mongrel, that could pass for what people commonly refer to as a "pit bull". If this dog attacked someone, it would likely be added to the "pit bull" attack statistics, even though it is just a mutt.

The local veterinarian in town thought my uncle's brindle-colored Plott was a black lab, so don't expect accuracy from the media or Joe Blow Dog Bite Victim, especially when they are using a label as vague as "pit bull" in the first place.

Now, what do you think of statistics that mention "pit bulls"?

35ft6
08-29-2007, 09:30 PM
Wikipedia has a list of areas with laws pertaining to pit bulls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_Bull

origmarm
08-30-2007, 03:40 AM
Again apologies for the edits..

I will point out that it's not always conscious human decision that causes gun fatalities and injuries, though. Carelessness is just as significant. Especially with children.

This last bit is very interesting. From the brief look I had last night, children make up a surprisingly large number of the fatalities/injuries. I was interested to see that "hunting incidents" featured quite highly, Dick Cheney is not alone :). I would be interested to know how many instances there are where the children are the shooter. My inclination is that many of the children related injuries are the "finding dad's gun" type if that makes sense.

Other species of "dangerous" animals are already banned (in US, for example, tigers and crocodiles), or only allowed in specific circumstances. Do you feel these laws should be repealed?

Sounds good to me. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that dog activists are like gun activists in the US, with a scorched earth approach to defending their "rights," feeling that every new law is a potential slippery slope. (allowing this law is at the very least an implicit acknowledgment that certain breeds are more dangerous than others, which brings us one step closer to a ban on breeds... unacceptable)

I do not believe the laws should be repealed in this case. I think its a question of degree and ultimately I feel that a crocodile or a tiger poses a significantly greater threat. I don't think the comparison is particularly apt. Its a hard decision as to where to put the dividing line and countries/states rightly differ on this. Personally I think that domesticated animals with potential to cause bodily harm are a pretty good guide as to where to put the line.

This sucks for a guy who buys a house in a certain neighborhood hoping that his children will be safe playing outside on their own, riding their bikes around the street, etc. It seems at some point, everybody experiences their dog getting away from them. Or maybe I'm wrong.

Yes agreed this is not ideal. Still to put this in context there are many potential neighbour situations that are far worse than this. You are correct that dogs get away from their owners, I have never had a dog that didn't manage this at some time or other (we have personally owned as a family more than 30 over the years). I believe in a way though this strengthens the no threat argument given the low incidence of attack. That said its all about level of risk really. At the end of the day if the owner is conscientious, trains their dog well, keeps it appropriately contained (i.e fenced or similar), if occasionally it gets away, its not a big issue. I think you've got to balance the risk with the context of a very small incidence of actual attack. I think as long as the child is educated as to how to treat the dog, unless you have some kind of specific reason to feel the dog is a risk in this case I would not worry overly about this. The best is to talk to the owners, I think in most cases people are able to make a pretty good judgement based on this.

This is from the AKC (hardly a radical, street cred influenced group of posers) page on the Amercian Staffordshire terrier:

"Temperament
From the past history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the modern dog draws its character of indomitable courage, high intelligence, and tenacity. This, coupled with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, makes it a foremost all-purpose dog."

This is an excellent post.I do feel the need to be careful here as the source of the material, while not radical, is definitely biased towards the dog. I agree with most of the above, a Staf is an intelligent breed and quiet is a very apt way to describe them. Where its owner is concerned it will indeed be very loyal and trustworthy and they are known to be good and protective of children and excellent in a family environment, particularly with very young children (sub 2yr). In this regard I feel that Stafs in particular differ from other bull terriers.

Two things I have found to affect Stafs are that they are generally agressive towards other dogs. This can be a real problem with some of them. They tend to be absolutely fine with humans. Secondly the worry in my experience is that Stafs do not deal well with unknown situations. From memory they are not good at dealing with groups of children (they have an urge to protect "their" child and as such may take this too far). They also are very suspicious dogs, particuarly of males outside the owner's family. They are known for being difficult also where they are in the home environment and the owner (or family) are not present. Postmen in particular in the UK don't like Stafs :), but then they don't like dogs much in general

There is also a significant difference between English and American staffordshires. The English breed is a lot smaller and typically far less overt its behaviour. It was historically far less selectively bred for fighting. The American staffordshire is larger and tends to be more agressive from what my neighbour from the US tell me. I have only had experience with the English variety.

That is essentially dog racism or stereotyping. You can get away with it on a human Internet Forum, but saying that Asians have "will uniformly have (a)certain propensit(y)" to do well at Math/Science etc will get you in trouble. But essentially it is the same intellectual argument.

I think this is a little far. Dogs and human beings are very different. I accept the argument that a dog's breeding and instinct play a large part in the behaviour of the dog. In the absence of genetic engineering, selective mating in humans and the like I'm not sure the comparison is particularly apt. I see what you are getting at, but at the end of the day its probably a balance between natural and bred instinct and environment/training.

They were not bred to be fighters, maulers, killers. The ORIGINAL breed was meant to be a family dog.

I am interested in this, could you please elaborate on what you mean by the original breed?

Just to be clear on this, there are about 15 to 20 "dog homocides" in the United States per year. I think that qualifies as "once or twice in a while", given that there are about 75 million dogs in the U.S., and about 300 million people.

Also, the term "pit bull" is generically/erroneously used to cover about 20 different breeds, not to mention all the mixed breeds that may look like a "pit bull". That alone muddies any statistics which mention a "pit bull" (there is no single breed known as "pit bull", and the media isn't interested in getting it right).

This is very apt in terms of the statistics, the incidence of attack is very low and the statistics are somewhat misleading in terms of what they brand "pit bull". I would be very interested to see a breakdown of this, as you can probably see from the above I don't feel that all "pit bulls" are equal as such. I also feels this puts some context on the discussion. If people were as worried about car maintenance as they are about this far fewer people would die or suffer injury.

Pit bull is a term that describes several types of dogs with similar physical characteristics. The American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier and to a lesser extent, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier commonly fall under the category of "pit bull." There are several physically similar breeds that are mistakenly termed "pit bull", including the Indian Bull Terrier, Argentine Dogo, the American Bulldog,the Bull Terrier and the Perro de Presa Canario. These breeds are usually not included by name in any Breed Specific Legislation (see below), but are sometimes included because of a broad definition and confusion as to what a pit bull actually is. [1] All of these breeds as well as many others (including Great Danes, Newfoundlands and Rottweilers) are members of the Molosser family of dog breeds

I think this strikes to the root of the public perception issue. Anyone imo that has had experience of Dogo Argentinos or Perros will tell you that they are a very different animal to a English Staf.

bluegrasser
08-30-2007, 05:08 AM
Interesting Bluegrasser, are you thinking what I'm thinking? ;)

Yes Maam......;)

alwaysatnet
08-30-2007, 06:44 AM
Indeed.
What are you talking about?

Here is an example, since you seem confused. My mechanic has a dog that is 100% mongrel, that could pass for what people commonly refer to as a "pit bull". If this dog attacked someone, it would likely be added to the "pit bull" attack statistics, even though it is just a mutt.

The local veterinarian in town thought my uncle's brindle-colored Plott was a black lab, so don't expect accuracy from the media or Joe Blow Dog Bite Victim, especially when they are using a label as vague as "pit bull" in the first place.

Now, what do you think of statistics that mention "pit bulls"?I think you are straining mighty hard to make pit bulls seem as innocent and harmless as little angels.
I think two bits of anecdotal evidence hardly make a case or erase the real damage real pit bulls have done.
I think you have gone over a line from defending the breed to now actually
advocating for them and suggesting that people just don't know what the dog is and suggesting reports of pit bull maulings are just fiction.

That's what I think.

MaximRecoil
08-30-2007, 07:46 AM
I think you are straining mighty hard to make pit bulls seem as innocent and harmless as little angels.And I think you are missing the point.
I think two bits of anecdotal evidence hardly make a case or erase the real damage real pit bulls have done.Not "evidence"; an illustrative example. And you still aren't getting how having a variety of dogs singularly described as "pit bulls" affects statistics.
I think you have gone over a line from defending the breed to now actually
advocating for them and suggesting that people just don't know what the dog is and suggesting reports of pit bull maulings are just fiction.

That's what I think."Defending the breed"? What breed?? How many times do I have to tell you that there is no such breed as a "pit bull"?

I wonder about your reading comprehension ability. When you have a multitude of breeds all being called "pit bull", with all else being equal, that alone will make them seem over-represented in any statistic you care to name.

I'll give you a simplified example:

Dog attacks:

Breed A = 1
Breed B = 1
Breed C = 1
Breed D = 1
Breed E = 1
Breed F = 1
Breed G = 1
Breed H = 1
Breed I = 1
Breed J = 1

Okay, imagine those are ten different breeds, and they are each responsible for 1 attack on a person in this hypothetical scenario.

Now imagine that someone comes along and decides that breeds B through J should be called "pit bulls", even though they are all different breeds. So what does this do to the statistics? Now they look like this:

Breed A = 1
"pit bull" = 9

QuietDaze
08-30-2007, 07:57 AM
And I think you are missing the point.
Not "evidence"; an illustrative example. And you still aren't getting how having a variety of dogs singularly described as "pit bulls" affects statistics.
"Defending the breed"? What breed?? How many times do I have to tell you that there is no such breed as a "pit bull"?

I wonder about your reading comprehension ability. When you have a multitude of breeds all being called "pit bull", with all else being equal, that alone will make them seem over-represented in any statistic you care to name.

I'll give you a simplified example:

Dog attacks:

Breed A = 1
Breed B = 1
Breed C = 1
Breed D = 1
Breed E = 1
Breed F = 1
Breed G = 1
Breed H = 1
Breed I = 1
Breed J = 1

Okay, imagine those are ten different breeds, and they are each responsible for 1 attack on a person in this hypothetical scenario.

Now imagine that someone comes along and decides that dogs B through J should be called "pit bulls", even though they are all different breeds. So what does this do to the statistics? Now they look like this:

Breed A = 1
"Pit Bull" = 9


I think you're wasting your time here. That is why I said in a previous post that statistics are not accurate. The CDC has already acknowledged that their stats are not accurate. Some labs and boxers are identified as pits. A person who is bitten by a chi is less likely to report it than a person bitten by 'pitbull' type dog. Most people are bitten by their OWN dogs accords to the stats and will probably never report it. Actually, if my dog bit me and there wasn't serious damage I probably wouldn't report it. Right now, the media wants to demonize these dogs instead of the owners and the uninformed public goes right along with it. As it stands now, if a mutt bites someone and even remotely resembles a pitbull TYPE dog its automatically lumped as a pitbull even though there are technically only 3 BREEDS of dogs that are considered 'pitbulls.' What sense does that make to a rational person?

alwaysatnet
08-30-2007, 08:13 AM
As you yourself have described them, there is a pit bull "type" of dog(including the American Pit Bull Terrier) which has a squat muscular body, large flat head with distinctive jaw line,short haired and cropped ears.

The pit bull is a classic type of dog and those are the dogs that people fear and that's the dog that instantly springs to mind when people think of pit bull attack or the ubiquitous thug accessory they have become. I mention the words "pit bull" and everybody immediately knows what I am talking about.

You are making a distinction that has no difference unless you are claiming that the three breeds of dog that technically are known as pit bull types are all "good" dogs but all the others that look like pit bulls but in reality are not "pit bulls" are bad.

QuietDaze
08-30-2007, 08:21 AM
'Pitbull' confusion

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070727/NEWS01/70727025/-1/BACK

Try not to cheat when you pick the pit from these pictures....

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

alwaysatnet
08-30-2007, 08:48 AM
So, sometimes what people think is a pit bull isn't actually a pit bull(although there is no "pit bull" per se thereby adding to the confusion). I don't see how that negates the dangers that "real" pit bulls can present.
Like most true believers you will find any hook so you can try to mitigate the damage your "true" pit bulls can present.

I understand morons with ego problems give the dogs a bad name and other dogs that look like real pit bulls are lumped in which further muddy things.
But to me it's like saying "street sweepers" give shot guns a bad name. However both can be very damaging and it doesn't lessen the killing potential of the lesser of the two evils to compare it to the greater.

To me pit bull "type" dogs,or any large aggressive breed, present a greater inherent risk than other dogs and don't belong in urban or residential settings.
You can say it's the owner's faults,by and large, but as long as it's not illegal in America to be a stupid low life punk the dogs present a real risk to innocent bystanders that may come into contact with the dogs.

QuietDaze
08-30-2007, 09:10 AM
As you yourself have described them, there is a pit bull "type" of dog(including the American Pit Bull Terrier) which has a squat muscular body, large flat head with distinctive jaw line,short haired and cropped ears.

The pit bull is a classic type of dog and those are the dogs that people fear and that's the dog that instantly springs to mind when people think of pit bull attack or the ubiquitous thug accessory they have become. I mention the words "pit bull" and everybody immediately knows what I am talking about.

You are making a distinction that has no difference unless you are claiming that the three breeds of dog that technically are known as pit bull types are all "good" dogs but all the others that look like pit bulls but in reality are not "pit bulls" are bad.

The 'pitbull' as you describe him is not a classic. I am referring to them as 'type' because the breed pitbull doesn't exist. Actually most people only THINK they know what they are talking about when someone mentions pitbull. I apologize if I wasn't clear. My point is that many other dogs and mixes are called pitbulls when they, in fact, are not. So my question to you would be: knowing that dogs are mistaken as what you call a pitbull how can you not wonder if you are a victim of the media hype? It's not a question of whether they are good or bad. I simply don't believe in good or bad breeds.

QuietDaze
08-30-2007, 09:17 AM
If you know of any instance in particular in which a non pit bull was identified as a pit bull I'd like to know of it. Otherwise I accept the numbers. A pit bull body and head are very distinctive.

Please see my other posts of pictures of dogs mistaken as pits and here are articles of mistaken identity.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm

alwaysatnet
08-30-2007, 09:19 AM
Here,at last, is an area of agreement(despite my earlier admittedly over the top hyperbole).
A pit bull is not a "bad" breed of dog because it is inherently evil. But it is a victim of it's own success at being so good at what it was bred to do.
It was bred to be aggressive and fearless(and of course it's loyal and protective). But it's reputation as a good fighter made it attractive to young urban morons who have misused the dog.
When there is an account in the paper,from time to time, about a pit bull that killed someone's next door neighbor or a child it's impossible to know the circumstances of that killing?
Was the dog abused and trained to be an even more aggressive fighter by some little thug or Vick type?
Or was the dog kept in a responsible manner?
Either way, all people will remember was the pit bull was a killer. When I encounter one I walk the other way.

QuietDaze
08-30-2007, 09:23 AM
So, sometimes what people think is a pit bull isn't actually a pit bull(although there is no "pit bull" per se thereby adding to the confusion). I don't see how that negates the dangers that "real" pit bulls can present.
Like most true believers you will find any hook so you can try to mitigate the damage your "true" pit bulls can present.


But the question asked to you before was do you see how misidentification skews the statistics you are holding so dear? Without accuracy how do you know what dangers the dog you refer to as a pitbull has actually been responsible for? I'm not trying to find a hook to mitigate the damage a dog can do. I clearly see proof that everything I hear isn't true and MAYBE these dogs are getting a bad rap and that I should be no more concerned about this dog moving in next door than a dalmation.

alwaysatnet
08-30-2007, 10:02 AM
And what you are missing is that even if the dog has been misidentified and isn't as prone to attack as statistics would lead one to believe(and that is your conjecture at this point) the pit bull type dog is still a dangerous one that I wouldn't trust around my child or family should something go wrong.

Even granting your premise that the dog is a victim of bad publicity,for the sake of argument, if a pit bull type dog ever snapped for some unknown reasons the results would be possibly deadly. That is not the case with most other breeds.

You can take that risk if you are confident in the breed. I'm not willing to.
That's my only point and I can see why others aren't willing to gamble with their health and life either.
Sigfried and Roy thought they knew their beast very well. Even after being mauled they were defending their tiger. I admire that kind of loyalty but not that kind of judgement.

LuckyR
08-30-2007, 10:21 AM
Ok so hooray for post #97, :) (but not for post #96) :neutral:

That's a 50% average, which I think it quite good.

This is a tough crowd, I'll settle for 50%.

LuckyR
08-30-2007, 10:59 AM
Again apologies for the edits..

This is an excellent post.I do feel the need to be careful here as the source of the material, while not radical, is definitely biased towards the dog. I agree with most of the above, a Staf is an intelligent breed and quiet is a very apt way to describe them. Where its owner is concerned it will indeed be very loyal and trustworthy and they are known to be good and protective of children and excellent in a family environment, particularly with very young children (sub 2yr). In this regard I feel that Stafs in particular differ from other bull terriers.

Two things I have found to affect Stafs are that they are generally agressive towards other dogs. This can be a real problem with some of them. They tend to be absolutely fine with humans. Secondly the worry in my experience is that Stafs do not deal well with unknown situations. From memory they are not good at dealing with groups of children (they have an urge to protect "their" child and as such may take this too far). They also are very suspicious dogs, particuarly of males outside the owner's family. They are known for being difficult also where they are in the home environment and the owner (or family) are not present. Postmen in particular in the UK don't like Stafs :), but then they don't like dogs much in general

There is also a significant difference between English and American staffordshires. The English breed is a lot smaller and typically far less overt its behaviour. It was historically far less selectively bred for fighting. The American staffordshire is larger and tends to be more agressive from what my neighbour from the US tell me. I have only had experience with the English variety.



I think this is a little far. Dogs and human beings are very different. I accept the argument that a dog's breeding and instinct play a large part in the behaviour of the dog. In the absence of genetic engineering, selective mating in humans and the like I'm not sure the comparison is particularly apt. I see what you are getting at, but at the end of the day its probably a balance between natural and bred instinct and environment/training.




Wow, a post from someone with actual, practical experience with the breed! Kudos to you!


I completely agree with your second post (although you probably meant to refute mine). My point wasn't that a particular breed might not have a greater or lesser than average chance of this or that behavior. Rather to point out that the practice of labeling a subgroup based on such stats and acting on such labeling is called "stereotyping" in human society, of which racism is a subset. In dogs, I don't care what you call it, but the practice of acting on the whole group based on the publicized actions of the fringe is poor management.

If criminalizing Stafs would eliminate dog attacks I would be the first to support it. Unfortunately for those who seek a simple solution to a complex problem, the issue is with the owners, not the dogs.

alwaysatnet
08-30-2007, 11:24 AM
Agreed, but as I posted earlier, how in America,where it isn't illegal to be young and stupid,do you do that?
I wouldn't want to outlaw fast cars just because young punks abuse the speed of them.
I wouldn't want to outlaw pit bull type dogs for the same reason of abuse of the animal. At the same time I don't want to minimize the inherent danger in the dog that was bred to be a fighter.
It's a tough question.

TheJRK
08-30-2007, 11:53 AM
Check out the list of dog maulings in post #8 and you tell me: what sort of a dog kills over and over again?
A dog bred specifically to be aggressive,tenacious and vicious.
They literally do kill human beings more than just once or twice in awhile.
I know you think you were being funny and making a point by mocking me but you really have made my points....thanks!

Humans kill more humans than pit bulls do... (don't worry I'll make a laundry list on here of all the deaths from other humans, that way you can use it just like the list in post #8).

And how did I make your point? You never explained that in your previous, (poorly written) post.

Just guessing by the way you put "young" and "punk" together numerous times, you are probably pretty old. So why do you care so much about pit bulls? I'm sure you're perfectly safe at the old folks home...

LuckyR
08-30-2007, 12:05 PM
Agreed, but as I posted earlier, how in America,where it isn't illegal to be young and stupid,do you do that?
I wouldn't want to outlaw fast cars just because young punks abuse the speed of them.
I wouldn't want to outlaw pit bull type dogs for the same reason of abuse of the animal. At the same time I don't want to minimize the inherent danger in the dog that was bred to be a fighter.
It's a tough question.



You said it, brah!

BTW, keep your mitts off of my car!

alwaysatnet
08-30-2007, 03:07 PM
Humans kill more humans than pit bulls do... (don't worry I'll make a laundry list on here of all the deaths from other humans, that way you can use it just like the list in post #8).

And how did I make your point? You never explained that in your previous, (poorly written) post.

Just guessing by the way you put "young" and "punk" together numerous times, you are probably pretty old. So why do you care so much about pit bulls? I'm sure you're perfectly safe at the old folks home...Thanks for the insights about humans killing humans but I think I'd already read that interesting fact somewhere else.

A real smart guy like you should be able to figure out how you made my points for me. Just think about it for awhile(or think about something,at least).

And judging by the "quality" of your thinking and writing skills (and your location) I'm not surprised you think fighting breeds are okay.
Say hi to Michael Vick the next saturday night y'all meet out behind someone's barn to watch dogs kill each other. How do you get the tobacco juice stains and dog blood out of your bib overalls anyway?
Never mind. Your name says it all.

origmarm
08-31-2007, 01:34 AM
I completely agree with your second post (although you probably meant to refute mine).

Not at all. I think you correctly touched on a point that some breeds that fall under "pit bulls" are probably incorrectly labelled.

My point wasn't that a particular breed might not have a greater or lesser than average chance of this or that behavior. Rather to point out that the practice of labeling a subgroup based on such stats and acting on such labeling is called "stereotyping" in human society, of which racism is a subset.

I'm kind of with you here. I think it depends how narrow you make the band. If you were to act on all "pitbull" labelled dogs, then I think thats wrong. If however you were to control ownership (i.e licence it or similar) for some subtypes (such as Dogos for example) I think thats a good solution. I think if you recognise the potential danger here its a lot easier to mitigate it.

In dogs, I don't care what you call it, but the practice of acting on the whole group based on the publicized actions of the fringe is poor management.

Yes agreed. Here again I think its about narrowness of label as per the above. What you want to do is target the "fringe breeds" of the class of dogs commonly referred to as "pit bull".

If criminalizing Stafs would eliminate dog attacks I would be the first to support it. Unfortunately for those who seek a simple solution to a complex problem, the issue is with the owners, not the dogs.

I am halfway with you here. I think the issue is part dog, part owner however. In the case of Stafs that have attacked, I think it is mostly owner. In the case of some of the other "pit bull" breeds I think the balance is probably about 50/50, for some its more like 70/30. The solution is to have a licencing/training program. This way you "train" the owners and educate them as to their responsibilities. You also ensure that certain dogs are contained i.e correctly fenced, on a leash, muzzled if necessary in a public area etc...
The difficulty here is that it would be extremely difficult to enforce. Anyone who owns a female dog could just sell the puppies on and....

So, sometimes what people think is a pit bull isn't actually a pit bull(although there is no "pit bull" per se thereby adding to the confusion). I don't see how that negates the dangers that "real" pit bulls can present.

I think this comes pretty close. I do however want to make the point that its can present. Its about combining good training and good ownership practices with the potential for problems.

But it is a victim of it's own success at being so good at what it was bred to do.

This is correct for some of the sub breeds.

Please see my other posts of pictures of dogs mistaken as pits and here are articles of mistaken identity.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/MistakenIdentity/WrongId.htm

This is a good link. They rightly point out that Bull Mastiffs are often badly identified. Rhodesians are an interesting mistake though. That and some of the pictures on here are laughably different from bulldogs, terriers or any kind of cross of those two :)

It's a tough question.

Indeed

superstition
08-31-2007, 05:05 AM
I'm frankly sick of neighborhood cats killing all the birds I spend money on feeding. Our neighborhood was home to a lot of nice birds, especially cardinals. A new cat has wiped them out, with the exception of the worthless sparrows (I buy safflower and other seeds sparrows dislike).

I have no sympathy for roaming cats being killed, as long as they're free to decimate the bird and rabbit population of neighborhoods (leaving sparrows to breed like cockroaches).

(I don't like sparrows because they're nasty. They're overly aggressive, even to each other, make an unpleasent noise, throw all the food from a feeder onto the ground, and come in huge numbers.)

origmarm
08-31-2007, 05:44 AM
I have no sympathy for roaming cats being killed, as long as they're free to decimate the bird and rabbit population of neighborhoods (leaving sparrows to breed like cockroaches).

I have to agree with you on this one. I have little time for complaints about peoples cats getting attacked by dogs when the cat roams into their garden or similar. Cats do not hesitate to kill whatever they please and if you allow your pet to roam onto someone else's property when you know there is a dog there well....
Its like letting your pet mouse roam free in the neighbours back yard and then complaining when their cat kills it

QuietDaze
08-31-2007, 06:45 AM
This is a good link. They rightly point out that Bull Mastiffs are often badly identified. Rhodesians are an interesting mistake though. That and some of the pictures on here are laughably different from bulldogs, terriers or any kind of cross of those two :)

Thanks. Funny enough a Rhodesian was my very first dog. She was a typical ridgeback with the ridge, lean muscles, long legged, about 75 pounds and average height for the standard with normal houndish features. However, you come across a lot of ridgebacks who are short, wide, appear overly muscular, have wide faces and are ridgeless. They look very much like 'pits'. The picture in the link looked more like a standard ridgeback face.

You might appreciate this useless fact. Ridgebacks are reputed to have one of the strongest bites lb for lb of all dogs. (however, no one can actually come up with a reliable test for bite strength that I know of.)

origmarm
08-31-2007, 07:19 AM
Thanks. Funny enough a Rhodesian was my very first dog. She was a typical ridgeback with the ridge, lean muscles, long legged, about 75 pounds and average height for the standard with normal houndish features.

I like them a lot I have to say, never owned one though. I have had several Weimeraners which when they get good excercise look kind of similar in terms of the lean muscles though without the ridge.

However, you come across a lot of ridgebacks who are short, wide, appear overly muscular, have wide faces and are ridgeless. They look very much like 'pits'.

I've never come accross one, that would be an interesting looking dog. Not really sure I would like it though. For me its really the stance and the jaw that give bull terriers that distinctive look so I guess they are easier to confuse. Not a particular fan to be honest of those type of features, I like my dogs more lean and long, I'm a big fan of gun dogs in particular and hunting dogs. Collies are also a favourite of mine but then being from a farming village you would expect that :)

You might appreciate this useless fact. Ridgebacks are reputed to have one of the strongest bites lb for lb of all dogs. (however, no one can actually come up with a reliable test for bite strength that I know of.)

That is interesting, I assume its because of the jaw shape being long, that tends to make strong bites. Tends to be more directed at hunting orientated dogs also (in terms of initial breeding). The shorter, wider jaws tend to make better holding bites but they aren't necessarily as strong, do more damage generally though.

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 07:24 AM
I'm frankly sick of neighborhood cats killing all the birds I spend money on feeding. Our neighborhood was home to a lot of nice birds, especially cardinals. A new cat has wiped them out, with the exception of the worthless sparrows (I buy safflower and other seeds sparrows dislike).

I have no sympathy for roaming cats being killed, as long as they're free to decimate the bird and rabbit population of neighborhoods (leaving sparrows to breed like cockroaches).

(I don't like sparrows because they're nasty. They're overly aggressive, even to each other, make an unpleasent noise, throw all the food from a feeder onto the ground, and come in huge numbers.)There are ways of foiling a cat with your feeder placement. If you don't care about cats why should the cat owner care about your birds?

A cat is only doing what it is wired up to do.

LuckyR
08-31-2007, 08:43 AM
There are ways of foiling a cat with your feeder placement. If you don't care about cats why should the cat owner care about your birds?

A cat is only doing what it is wired up to do.

Apples and oranges. The cat is a pet who is the responsibility of the owner. Songbirds are wild animals who have to fend for themselves. Anyone who lets a predatory pet (cat) roam, deserves whatever happens to their pet (kind of unfortunate for the cat though, alas they can't pick their owner...). Where I live the coyotes are keeping the cat population down pretty well.

For cat owners who insist on inflicting their pet on the rest of the neighborhood, there is this cool new invention that will protect songbirds, it's called a bell.

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 08:54 AM
I'm not defending the right of cats to kill songbirds. But saying a cat deserves whatever it gets is pretty draconian.
Cats were domesticated in large part because they were so good at getting rid of small vermin and crop invading birds.
If I shoot your pitbull because it gets aggressive with my golden retriever(even though your pit was bred just for that quality) that would be excessive too. Why punish the animal for being what people wanted it to be?
A bell isn't a bad choice but I think cat proof feeders are better.

LuckyR
08-31-2007, 09:11 AM
I'm not defending the right of cats to kill songbirds. Cats were domesticated in large part because they were so good at getting rid of small vermin and crop invading birds.

But saying a cat deserves whatever it gets is pretty draconian.

If I shoot your pitbull because it gets aggressive with my golden retriever(even though your pit was bred just for that quality) that would be excessive too. Why punish the animal for being what people wanted it to be?
A bell isn't a bad choice but I think cat proof feeders are better.


You may not be actively defending the rights of cats to kill songbirds in your conscious mind, but if you let a cat without a bell roam, it's going to kill them.

The cat doesn't deserve a bad fate, the cat owner does for letting it roam, but the cat (and the songbirds) ends up paying for it, alas.

I don't own a pitbull, but I will say this. My dog is either: on a leash, in a fenced area or in my house (or at the vet/kennel) 100% of it's life. I agree it is too bad that the pet has to pay when the owner is at fault, it is just a fact of a human dominated society.

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 09:27 AM
You may not be actively defending the rights of cats to kill songbirds in your conscious mind, but if you let a cat without a bell roam, it's going to kill them.

The cat doesn't deserve a bad fate, the cat owner does for letting it roam, but the cat (and the songbirds) ends up paying for it, alas.

I don't own a pitbull, but I will say this. My dog is either: on a leash, in a fenced area or in my house (or at the vet/kennel) 100% of it's life. I agree it is too bad that the pet has to pay when the owner is at fault, it is just a fact of a human dominated society.You are a responsible person and I salute that. But I think it's inhumane to restrict a cat to an indoor existence and it's rather like sentencing someone to a life of solitary confinement. A cat is made to roam over a certain territory by nature.
Perhaps the bell is an option but then it becomes a signal to roaming dogs that a cat is about and fair game to kill.
It's a shame when a cat kills a beautiful songbird but how about when it kills a rat or lizard no one cares about?
All in all I still think cat proof feeders are the best solution in this imperfect world.

LuckyR
08-31-2007, 09:52 AM
I have never had a cat so I am not speaking from personal experience however my step daughter has owned cats for years and they have always been "house cats" that is, she doesn't let them out of the house. I believe she would take exception to the idea that she is essentially "sentencing (her cats) to a life of solitary confinement".

tennis-n-sc
08-31-2007, 10:08 AM
Agreed, but as I posted earlier, how in America,where it isn't illegal to be young and stupid,do you do that?
I wouldn't want to outlaw fast cars just because young punks abuse the speed of them.

No, it isn't illegal to be young, and stupid. But the young, and stupid, should be held accountable, with the rest of us, for our actions. Perhaps accountability is a large part of the answer. It appears to me that more and more in America we simply do not want to take the time to demand accountability.

TheJRK
08-31-2007, 10:30 AM
Thanks for the insights about humans killing humans but I think I'd already read that interesting fact somewhere else.

A real smart guy like you should be able to figure out how you made my points for me. Just think about it for awhile(or think about something,at least).

And judging by the "quality" of your thinking and writing skills (and your location) I'm not surprised you think fighting breeds are okay.
Say hi to Michael Vick the next saturday night y'all meet out behind someone's barn to watch dogs kill each other. How do you get the tobacco juice stains and dog blood out of your bib overalls anyway?
Never mind. Your name says it all.

Whoa there old timer, don't forget you have to watch your blood pressure!

Where in any of my posts did I say "fighting breeds" are okay? And what happened to using the term "killer breed"? Is your Alzheimer’s acting up again?

You're obviously a cat lover who has an intense hatred for dogs (or any other animal that is not a cat) which is why you use stereotypes to back-up your "facts" on pit bulls. All the while defending a cat's instinct to kill birds because that is what "it's wired to do."

You use another stereotype to make a reference to Northern Virginia, tobacco juice stains, dog blood, and Michael Vick which shows that despite your advanced age you are extremely immature and childish.

You've made your point - you don't like dogs, black people, or black people that own dogs. Just let it go...

superstition
08-31-2007, 10:40 AM
For cat owners who insist on inflicting their pet on the rest of the neighborhood, there is this cool new invention that will protect songbirds, it's called a bell.
I asked the owner to put a bell on her cat and she refused, saying it would be cruel.

superstition
08-31-2007, 10:42 AM
I still think cat proof feeders are the best solution in this imperfect world.
Cats kill birds all over the place, not just at feeders.

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 12:00 PM
True, but that's nature. I'm not willing to lock up all cats all over the world.
Some larger birds kill cats so look at it that way.

LuckyR
08-31-2007, 12:14 PM
I asked the owner to put a bell on her cat and she refused, saying it would be cruel.

I am shocked, shocked...

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 12:40 PM
Whoa there old timer, don't forget you have to watch your blood pressure!

Where in any of my posts did I say "fighting breeds" are okay? And what happened to using the term "killer breed"? Is your Alzheimer’s acting up again?

You're obviously a cat lover who has an intense hatred for dogs (or any other animal that is not a cat) which is why you use stereotypes to back-up your "facts" on pit bulls. All the while defending a cat's instinct to kill birds because that is what "it's wired to do."

You use another stereotype to make a reference to Northern Virginia, tobacco juice stains, dog blood, and Michael Vick which shows that despite your advanced age you are extremely immature and childish.But making references to senior's homes and alzheimers and my blood pressure are the mark of maturity? Right?
You have to right to be an idiot but do you have to be such a hypocritical idiot?

You've made your point - you don't like dogs, black people, or black people that own dogs. Just let it go...
And you've made your point you are an idiot with nothing to add to a discussion but trollery. Don't bother posting again. I already feel dirty enough dignifying your drivel by responding to it. It won't happen again.

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 12:43 PM
I have never had a cat so I am not speaking from personal experience however my step daughter has owned cats for years and they have always been "house cats" that is, she doesn't let them out of the house. I believe she would take exception to the idea that she is essentially "sentencing (her cats) to a life of solitary confinement".

We have differing views then on cats. Most house cats get declawed as well so I think in the event they were attacked by a dog taking that defense away from them would be very inhumane.

LuckyR
08-31-2007, 12:48 PM
We have differing views then on cats. Most house cats get declawed as well so I think in the event they were attacked by a dog taking that defense away from them would be very inhumane.

Again, I don't claim to know much about cat ownership, although my step daughter's cat's are not declawed (although she also owns a dog). I think she would describe declawing a cat in an extremely negative light.

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 12:55 PM
Then we are in agreement on that issue. That's a good thing.
BTW... what part of the great pacific northwest do you reside in?
Just curious.

LuckyR
08-31-2007, 01:25 PM
Then we are in agreement on that issue. That's a good thing.
BTW... what part of the great pacific northwest do you reside in?
Just curious.

The beautiful city of Portland OR

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 03:31 PM
The beautiful city of Portland ORMy daughter goes to college there. I shall be visiting soon:)

LuckyR
08-31-2007, 04:40 PM
My daughter goes to college there. I shall be visiting soon:)

Bring your racquet

35ft6
08-31-2007, 05:43 PM
But can't we all agree that if we let gays get married, it's only a matter of time before these idiots want to MARRY their pit bulls? Discuss.

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 07:01 PM
But can't we all agree that if we let gays get married, it's only a matter of time before these idiots want to MARRY their pit bulls? Discuss.
Here's a story from my neck of the woods (about 15 minutes from where I live):
Admitted zoophile beaten by father with crowbar
Dover Foxcroft, ME (US)

Incident Date: Thursday, Dec 7, 2000
County: Piscataquis
Local Map: available
Disposition: Not Charged
Case Images: 2 files available

Person of Interest: Philip Buble
Case ID: 854
Classification: Bestiality
Animal: dog (non pit-bull) [Evidently pet-abuse.com recognizes two types of dogs, "pit-bull" and "non pit-bull"]
View more cases in ME (US)

A Piscataquis County, Maine Resident ended up in the hospital after "coming out of the closet" about his bestial passion for animals and his life as a zoophile. Philip Buble, 44 years old, was attacked and beaten with a crowbar by his 71 year old father while taking a shower in 1999 and had to be hospitalized due to injuries.

Philip Buble considered himself the the first out-of-the-closet "zoo" as he believed that his sexual preference and sexual abuse of animals was a 'sexual orientation'. He began to boast to neighbors, family, friends, co-workers, and shared his secrets of lust and sexual abuse to animals with others on the internet. According to a published Maine news article he even at one time went on a coast to coast radio show to share his hidden feelings and life as an animal sexual abuser.

His father, Frank Buble, has pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to eight years with the Department of Corrections, with all but nine months suspended, on each of the two counts. He also was placed on probation for six years with special conditions, including making restitution of up to $10,000. He also was ordered to undergo psychological counseling.

Philip Buble requested and was denied permission to have the abused dog (named "Lady") by his side in court as his "wife". He apparently wrote a letter from "Philip and Lady Buble" including his signature and a hand-drawn paw print. Mr Buble wants to attend court to see his father sentenced for trying to kill him because of his relationship with Lady.

Philip Buble told Justice Andrew Mead: "I'd like my significant other to attend by my side if possible as she was present in the house during the attack, though not a witness to it, thank goodness. I've been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human, being a dog of about 36 pounds weight and very well behaved."

Mr. Buble junior says he does not want his father jailed but says he needs serious therapy.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/854/ME/US/1

CanadianChic
08-31-2007, 08:03 PM
Here's a story from my neck of the woods (about 15 minutes from where I live):

Did you happen to meet the cast and crew of Deliverance that were filming in your backyard? ;)

alwaysatnet
08-31-2007, 08:04 PM
His father needs serious therapy?

snoopy
08-31-2007, 08:04 PM
I'm not sure where it fits in but, true story:

I was practicing my serve by myself in the tennis courts at a large urban park. The courts are fenced in, naturally, and there is a large grassy area surrounding them. A regular at the courts was walking his two old mutts outside of the courts, he wasn't playing tennis that day. He kindly comes over to give me advice about technique from outside the courts' fence. As he's talking to me another person was walking his 2 white pitt bulls near the court, both dogs were on a leash. His pit bulls saw the the mutts and immediately started barking and lunging towards them. The man holding the pit bulls tried to hold them back but they were too powerful. They pulled him to the ground as he screamed "sh*t they broke my arm." The pitt bulls began mauling the mutts. Luckily for the owner of the mutts he had a small pocket knife. Only after stabbing the pitt bulls multiple times did they stop attacking his dogs. There was red blood streaming down the white skin of the dogs as the owner limped away with his bleeding dogs before the police could arrive. I don't know what happened to the pitt bulls but I know the 2 mutts survived b/c I eventually met the owner again at the courts.

All this happened within 5 feet of me while I was standing safely behind the fence and in the court.

I don't trust any dog even the nice ones. They aren't rational, they're animals and they have big teeth. I would only get a dog if I needed security or if I owned a farm. If you need a companion get a friend.

By the way I think i trust cats even less, they're just evil.

Azzurri
08-31-2007, 08:12 PM
http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html

OK....so there is a web site claiming there are myths about Pitbulls...its a WEB SITE someone created. Does it mean its all true...NO. The list of people being killed by these dogs is endless. Not saying all PB and RW are bad dogs, they are not, but I have heard too many stories about these dogs attacking children and adults. I see a PB and RW I stay away. I live in a small development...I hope no one ever brings in one of those dogs.

35ft6
08-31-2007, 08:12 PM
I'm not sure where it fits in but, true story:

...

All this happened within 5 feet of me while I was standing safely behind the fence and in the court.Clearly, that man wasn't a responsible owner. If he WERE, he'd been... um... stronger and heavier?

35ft6
08-31-2007, 08:13 PM
Here's a story from my neck of the woods (about 15 minutes from where I live): This would be a terrific children's book.

This is the second story about bestiality I've read today. The first was about Japanese fisherman and manta rays. You heard right.

Azzurri
08-31-2007, 08:15 PM
Notable Pit Bulls owners include:

Jessica Alba[93]
Michael J. Fox[94]
Alicia Silverstone[95]
Jessica Biel owns three pit bulls[96][97]
Adam Brody and Rachel Bilson have a pit bull named Penny Lane.[98]
TV cook Rachael Ray has two pit bulls.[102]
Comedian Jon Stewart has 2 pit bulls, named Monkey and Shamsky.[103][104]

C'mon Moose...you could do better than that...you forgot Mike Vick....

While the people you mentioned seem to be ok people, there are many, many more that are not. Ala Mike Vick.

Eviscerator
08-31-2007, 11:08 PM
Many cities ban pits, so you should check with your local police or animal control. They are a ****** and will kill children so do what is best for your family and protect yourself.
If I were in your shoes I'd report them as it is illegal to own pits where I live. I love dogs, but way too many pits have been responsible for horrific damage to other dogs, children and people in general.

CanadianChic
08-31-2007, 11:32 PM
It is one thing to talk a good game but knowledge is power....inform yourselves.



http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

This one is very informative:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/armpusstatedoglaws.htm

http://doglaw.hugpug.com/index.html

MaximRecoil
08-31-2007, 11:51 PM
Did you happen to meet the cast and crew of Deliverance that were filming in your backyard? ;)LOL.

Notice in the article where it says:
According to a published Maine news article he even at one time went on a coast to coast radio show to share his hidden feelings and life as an animal sexual abuser.
The radio show they are talking about is The Howie Carr Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Howie_Carr_Show). I don't think it is a national "coast to coast" show, but it does at least cover New England pretty well. Howie Carr is originally from Maine, and the show is broadcast out of Boston.

I happened to be listening to Howie Carr the night this guy called in. I couldn't believe it when he said he was calling from Parkman, Maine, which is my father's hometown (the article mentions the nearby town of Dover, but that is only where the court case was held).

Howie was just flabbergasted with this guy, who is actually proud of himself and thinks he's perfectly normal. Now most callers say a few things and it is on to the next caller, but Howie kept this guy on the line for most of the show. Howie was giving him hell the whole time too, but it didn't phase this guy in the least. Then after the call was finally over, Howie got calls from Mainers, some right from Parkman or nearby, some who actually knew this guy (he used his real name on the air)...it was quite a show. I wonder if a tape of that broadcast is available. It was probably the most [in]famous Howie Carr show ever.

CanadianChic
08-31-2007, 11:58 PM
Sorry MR, I couldn't resist. It certainly takes all kinds, eh? People like this freak me out a bit - the sort who feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with their abhorrent behaviour and carry along their perverse ways as though WE are all the abnormal ones. For someone like this, I would see nothing wrong with undressing him, smearing peanut butter on him from head to toe and shoving him in a pen with hungry swine (although something gives me the idea he would enjoy that too much). ;)

alwaysatnet
09-01-2007, 08:30 AM
OOOOh,kinky eh?
I saw Sally Fields on the old Tonight Show with Johnny Carson talk about the time a bunch of neighborhood girls jumped her, stripped her, covered her in peanut butter and threw her in a pool.

I've never gotten over the image! This pig angle though has finally cured me I think....gracias por nada!

LuckyR
09-01-2007, 09:48 AM
Clearly, that man wasn't a responsible owner. If he WERE, he'd been... um... stronger and heavier?

Have you ever seen the Nanny 911 show? Do you think those bratty kids got that way a week before the show aired? Nope, like most things in life you reap what you sow. Being a responsible pet owner starts when the pet is a puppy, not by holding the leash better when they are full grown and out of control from a lifetime of irresponsible pet ownership...

35ft6
09-01-2007, 11:23 AM
Have you ever seen the Nanny 911 show? Do you think those bratty kids got that way a week before the show aired? Nope, like most things in life you reap what you sow. Being a responsible pet owner starts when the pet is a puppy, not by holding the leash better when they are full grown and out of control from a lifetime of irresponsible pet ownership... Again, there's that circular argument. Don't underestimate the power of nature as opposed to nurture. It's hubris to think that humans have the power to completely alter the will of nature.

Yeah, I've seen Nanny 911. In fact, I've worked on Nanny 911. It's true. :-(

superstition
09-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Here's a story from my neck of the woods (about 15 minutes from where I live):
If a person claims they have a sexual orientation that involves sexual acts with soft fruit that doesn't mean heterosexuality is a disorder, or that heterosexuality is a matter of choice.

LuckyR
09-01-2007, 08:36 PM
Again, there's that circular argument. Don't underestimate the power of nature as opposed to nurture. It's hubris to think that humans have the power to completely alter the will of nature.

Yeah, I've seen Nanny 911. In fact, I've worked on Nanny 911. It's true. :-(

"Completely"? In that case you are correct, but there is a mile of gray area between complete alteration of nature and doing a better job than the guy in the OP's story.

Tell us about your 911 story...

35ft6
09-02-2007, 11:52 AM
"Completely"? In that case you are correct, but there is a mile of gray area between complete alteration of nature and doing a better job than the guy in the OP's story. Yeah, what did he do wrong? His dogs went crazy at the sight of another dog and he tried to restrain them, but couldn't.Tell us about your 911 story... I work in post production. Lots of screaming kids.

origmarm
09-02-2007, 11:26 PM
This is the second story about bestiality I've read today.

Oh dear :)

QuietDaze
09-05-2007, 08:53 AM
I like them a lot I have to say, never owned one though. I have had several Weimeraners which when they get good excercise look kind of similar in terms of the lean muscles though without the ridge.

I've never come accross one, that would be an interesting looking dog. Not really sure I would like it though. For me its really the stance and the jaw that give bull terriers that distinctive look so I guess they are easier to confuse. Not a particular fan to be honest of those type of features, I like my dogs more lean and long, I'm a big fan of gun dogs in particular and hunting dogs. Collies are also a favourite of mine but then being from a farming village you would expect that :)


In my opinion the short, fat ones are not very attractive. You should spend some time with a ridgeback. VERY smart. Too smart actually but very hardheaded. You can get them to do pretty much anything for food. But once they figure out where the food is kept, and how to get it they don't need you anymore. Mine had a nasty habit of opening the fridge and helping herself.

They look very similar to Weims. I got a ridgeback because they aren't very popular so it's fairly easy to find one and for the most part they're very healthy. They also have the same problem as weims in that it's impossible to tire them out. LOL

LuckyR
09-05-2007, 10:40 AM
Yeah, what did he do wrong? His dogs went crazy at the sight of another dog and he tried to restrain them, but couldn't.


Hence my reference to Nanny 911. It is a strawman argument to not put in the time and effort to raise a youngster into the kind of adolescent or adult that you want, then when the misbehaving adolescent acts out, whine: "so what can I do now?"

Sounds like cool job, BTW.